RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Pierce writes: "The big story on the front page of The New York Times today about the decision-making process involved in putting together the White House 'kill list' ... is not about the means of killing and the relative merits of killing from afar."

President Barack Obama in Tucson, Arizona, 01/12/11. (photo: Getty Images)
President Barack Obama in Tucson, Arizona, 01/12/11. (photo: Getty Images)

The End of the Post-9/11 World

By Charles Pierce, Esquire Magazine

30 May 12


he big story on the front page of The New York Times today about the decision-making process involved in putting together the White House "kill list" - and I'm old enough to remember those romantic days when the only one involved was Gordon Liddy and the only name on the list was Jack Anderson's - is not about the means of killing and the relative merits of killing from afar, or even about what the story refers to as the president's "own deep reserve" about the possibility that he might have to drop a Hellfire or some teenagers. (Let's face facts: If he didn't have a "deep reserve" about this, he'd be a sociopath and, as it is, the available evidence indicates that he seems to overcome his deep reserve fairly readily.) It's really not about what he does. It's about what we tolerate.

Let's get the easiest stuff out of the way first. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that allows the president to make private war on individuals. Any historical precedent you can cite is rooted not in that document, but in the steady historical draining of the war powers from the Congress, where the Founders anchored them, to the Executive branch, all the way back to Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates, when Jefferson circumvented the requirements by sending a fleet off to Africa and not telling Congress until it was too late to recall it. What enables this president - any president - to behave in such a manner is custom and tradition, an historical easement granted by the Congress across its clearly defined sovereign territory because Congress has grown too timid to stand up for itself in this area, occasionally passing some fig leaf nonsense that it says amounts to a declaration of war. (Jefferson finally blackjacked one of those out of the Congress.) Except that, under the Constitution, nothing "amounts to" a declaration of war. War is declared or it isn't. You can argue that, in doing what he's doing, the president is acting in accordance with longstanding policy, and even that he's acting in the best interest of the nation, but you cannot argue that he is upholding the Constitution he swore to preserve and protect, because he's not. And no pet lawyer can say that he is.

All the talk about "flexibility" and how the president manages to keep all his options open reminds me of nothing more than all that Neustadt and Graham Allison that we learned in the aftermath of the Kennedy Administration. JFK was big on flexibility and options, too. Sooner or later, that led to body counts, and the new math of the old slaughter. There are echoes of this here....

It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. "Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization - innocent neighbors don't hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs," said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.

How about the guy pushing the goat cart up the other side of the road when the trucks with the guns drive by? Is he up to no good or is he just going to work? And how do we count him? Or do we? And, all the same to you, I'd rather not have the "explicit intelligence" that I am innocent produced "posthumously" just because it keeps your bookkeeping clean. What in hell good is it to me then? Am I less dead?

The Times continues:

Aides say Mr. Obama has several reasons for becoming so immersed in lethal counterterrorism operations. A student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, he believes that he should take moral responsibility for such actions. And he knows that bad strikes can tarnish America's image and derail diplomacy. "He realizes this isn't science, this is judgments made off of, most of the time, human intelligence," said Mr. Daley, the former chief of staff. "The president accepts as a fact that a certain amount of screw-ups are going to happen, and to him, that calls for a more judicious process."

In this, the president becomes only the most recent secular power player to find the "just war" doctrine a useful alibi for doing what he wants to do in the first place, while simultaneously salving his conscience. It has been a moral mess since it was first devised, and has been used as alibi for imperial bloodletting going back to the doctrine's formative days, when Tertullian told the emperor not to worry, that the Christians in his army were not pacifists. (Read up some time on the tortured mess the Church made of itself trying to determine if "just war" applied to "just revolution," especially when the religious turmoil of the Reformation spilled bloodily over into peasant revolts and the like.) And, anyway, the president is relying on a theory first devised by a bishop named Augustine from North Africa and codified by a scholar in France named Thomas Aquinas. Whatever happened to all that bellyaching about basing American law on the opinions of damned foreigners, anyway?

Finally, though, the nickel drops:

David Axelrod, the president's closest political adviser, began showing up at the "Terror Tuesday" meetings, his unspeaking presence a visible reminder of what everyone understood: a successful attack would overwhelm the president's other aspirations and achievements.

This has been the new normal since September 11. Everyone knows, but nobody says, that if something happens again, the elite consensus in this country, and the overwhelming consensus of the citizenry, will be to pitch the Bill of Rights out the window and start rounding folks up. And, also, that, if it happens on a Democrat's watch, they'll be carving Dick Cheney's head on Mt. Rushmore by sunset of the second day. Could make it tough in Indiana or North Carolina this fall. And thus do homicidal maniacs overseas come to control the spirit of the democratic process.

And, of course, there is the extrajudicial killing of an American named Anwar al-Awlaki. The decision to do so was reached in the calm, cool deliberation of absolute absurdity:

That record, and Mr. Awlaki's calls for more attacks, presented Mr. Obama with an urgent question: Could he order the targeted killing of an American citizen, in a country with which the United States was not at war, in secret and without the benefit of a trial? The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel prepared a lengthy memo justifying that extraordinary step, asserting that while the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch.

Is it even necessary to point out how preposterous it is to claim that the dead man's Fifth Amendment rights were guaranteed because members of the Executive Branch had long discussions about how and when to kill him? Jesus, just kill the guy. The Bushies may have had manifest contempt for due process, but at least they didn't go out of their way to make a burlesque out of it.

And then, ultimately, after a lot of tightening on the rucksacks and everything, we arrive, finally, at what we've made of ourselves and our nation:

Mr. Obama's record has eroded the political perception that Democrats are weak on national security. No one would have imagined four years ago that his counterterrorism policies would come under far more fierce attack from the American Civil Liberties Union than from Mr. Romney. Aides say that Mr. Obama's choices, though, are not surprising. The president's reliance on strikes, said Mr. Leiter, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center, "is far from a lurid fascination with covert action and special forces. It's much more practical. He's the president. He faces a post-Abdulmutallab situation, where he's being told people might attack the United States tomorrow." "You can pass a lot of laws," Mr. Leiter said, "Those laws are not going to get Bin Laden."

Of course not. Laws are weak. Laws are wrong. Laws are as clumsy as flintlocks and Bowie knives. Laws do not help make people dead. (Except in Texas, of course.) Laws are not even good politics any more. They won't get you re-elected. It used to be that we were in a post-9/11 world, and that made anything acceptable. Now, apparently, we are in a post-bombs-in-the-skivvies world, and that's an even more dangerous place. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

-41 # Skeptical1247 2012-05-30 11:11
Is there a point to this article? Besides thinly -veiled outrage that the Commander-in-Ch ief took personal responsibility for the making of unpalatable decisions that have proven to be effective, that do NOT involve invading sovereign nations, that do NOT involve the deaths of over 102,000 non-combatants, that involve no American casualties WHAT SO GODDAM EVER? Do you think the writers of the Constitution envisioned either the technology available or the insanity of terrorists waging intentional war on non-military targets as a political statement? The man is charged with "defending" the USA. It IS his biggest Constitutional responsibility. Yes, it sucks that it is this way, but really in war and even in civilian pursuit of criminals, the niceties of laws goes right out the window. There are probably 50 other issues of greater importance to our survival and well-being as a nation that you could (and probably should) focus on.
+70 # CreativeBlue 2012-05-30 11:51
Wrong wrong wrong, for several reasons, but I'll just mention two.

The president is not "charged with defending the United States," that's the job of the Department of Defense; his sworn primary duty is to "uphold" the Constitution, thusly: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

(The Presidential Oath of Office —

Moreover, the delivery of a bomb across a foreign border with intent is an act of war, according to the Geneva Conventions, of which the US is a signatory, and as Mr pierce has correctly pointed out, no war has been declared. This makes Obama an outlaw, as in operating outside the law, ie, the Constitution.

Before you comment the next time, at least read the pertinent documents.
+38 # colvictoria 2012-05-30 11:54
"Defending the USA" how about being more honest and say that he defends the interests of the big oil companies? or companies interested in precious metals and things like uranium to make lethal DNA altering weapons like those used in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I hate to say it because I voted for this man but Obama is a murderer who did not deserve that Nobel Peace Prize.
I am ashamed and am not proud of this President. He is just as bad as W and even worse because people sympathize with him for his blackness, good looks, charm, great oratory skills and his ability to get the crowd going by singing classic R&B tunes.
Behind all of this is a more sinister side which most Democrats refuse to see or admit.
A vote for Obama is a vote for death and murder
here and abroad.
+22 # noitall 2012-05-30 12:04
"...that involve no American casualties..." and how can we possibly know THAT for sure? Maybe they had a captive, or maybe a reporter was working on a story in the neighborhood. My point is, when you explode two MASSIVE bombs (and you've gotta see them to appreciate the "shock and awe") its not "pinpoint", its like using a shotgun to shoot the queen ant in an anthill. Its cowardly! If that is what we tolerate, "no Americans killed" and its alright, count me out! outside of the several block kill range, unspeakable injuries are inflicted on the "survivors". Do you think that would generate hate if we were on the receiving end? would it drive some of us, the grieving, to use our bodies as weapons for revenge? Would we be the hero throwing ourselves on the grenade? 9/11 was the same thing but inflicted from the other side. Collateral damage. That's how THEY saw it. (and it was a hellofa insurance (and governmental) coup for some unmentionables) . NEVER, including up til today, NO STEEL SKYSCRAPER has fallen due to fire. But that's another story (that won't be told).
+12 # bluepilgrim 2012-05-30 13:35
At least it's not a violation of the Sixth Commandment:

Thou shalt not kill Americans.

(That IS the new translation, isn't it?)
+6 # fliteshare 2012-05-30 18:24
King George the 2nd trans.
+29 # brookegh 2012-05-30 12:10
Finally, a login! This registration sucks! The thumbs up is rigged to go thumbs down. I gave you 2 thumbs up and gave up as it only registered as thumbs down.

I may not agree w/our current policies on executive authority, but,it is historical precedent that sets it up. Korea, JFK and Cuba or Vietnam, etc.. It is an issue to be explored without using it to blame the current administration.

We allow this to take place with our Congressional votes, our lack of historical and civic education, our anti-intellectu alism in this country.

Pick up a book on the history of England and you'll see the same executive patterns. Same thing's been happening forever. It's not new. What would be novel and new is an educated American electorate! Read an effing book from cover to cover. Choose books that have references listed. Turn off FOXNEWS. Learn how to discuss issues and listen to each other for a change. That would be new!
+11 # bluepilgrim 2012-05-30 13:40
(Just a note -- the thumbs up and down are recorded in real time, from all readers who give them. You see the new total only as you see the updated number, or if you refresh the comments or page.)

Yes, such murders have long been used by rullers, from ancient kings to modern mob godfathers, but the US was supposed to be different -- that was the point of the constitution and bill of rights, which was supposed to define the nation. Obama was supposed to be different too, by what he campaigned on.
+26 # bluepilgrim 2012-05-30 12:10
First, you are dead wrong about his responsibility: Oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Second, by failing to defnd the constitution, he is destroying the US -- that's the only thing which holds a nation together: when the constitution and laws of a nation are gone there is nothing left to defend excpet a nebulous territory.
+49 # Marvin Mandell 2012-05-30 12:32
The problem with Skeptica1247's comment is that he has no idea what motivates terrorists. Bush and Obama have become the prime recruiters of terrorists by their own terrorist actions. What if the US responded to 9/11 by sending doctors and engineers to the developing countries? The terrorists would have lost their support and would have shrunk to a few psychopaths. Instead Bush and Obama have met terror with terror. "Whoever battles w/ monsters had better see to it that he doesn't become a monster."- Nietszche
As a veteran of WW2 (88th Inf. Div., Italy), I am appalled.
+39 # Kwelinyingi 2012-05-30 11:22
How can we possibly take pride in presidents who in essence are cold blooded killers? How this man Obama is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is beyond me. Why not george W. Bush? Putting Obama on the same pedestal as MLK, Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu is an insult to these true bulwarks and promoters of peace, who actually earned their prize. But as a coward, Obama will never have the courage to return that ill-gotten prize to the Nobel Committee.
+6 # bluepilgrim 2012-05-30 12:19
I don't think he is a coward -- I think he is a sociopath.
+3 # alanvance 2012-05-30 14:27
Hannah Arendt smiled.
0 # RMDC 2012-05-31 04:31
Yes, Obama is a sociopath, just like Cheney, Bush, and all of the last regime. He's even a better liar than they were. Most people saw through them. Obama still is able to fool many.
+18 # Listner 2012-05-30 11:54
It's hard to imagine the number of heart wrenching decisions this president has to make on a daily basis. It comes with the job, as we are all aware . Still, would he have started this war(or the war in Iraq) given the same information ? Impossible to say. I'd lean towards no. The horrible conflict in Syria is insight.
The worst thing a president can inherit is a war. No matter which way you turn, it's the wrong way. I believe Barak Obama is an honorable man. I think he feels these decisions, and is torn by trying to do the right thing and at the same time, trying to do the honorable thing.
They don't always coincide.He's winding down the war and tomorrow wouldn't be too soon for me. It's a lose/lose obligation, and when the economy is being so adversely affected by it, it's a war we'll never win.
+14 # CreativeBlue 2012-05-30 12:32
Here we go again.

This president is only down-sizing the war(s) in 2 place, while adding several mini-conflicts all over Hell's Kitchen at the same time.

There are Special Forces assassinating people in dozens of countries at this very moment, and probably as many as 120 countries by the end of the year (

For pity's sake people, get your heads out of the sand. This guy is operating an Imperial presidency bigger than Bush ever dreamed of.
+8 # colvictoria 2012-05-30 13:12
Obama is a very intelligent man. He knew what he was in for and knowing that he went ahead and ran for president. An honorable man would have examined his conscience and taken into consideration his wife and his two girls. He could have taken a different path i.e following in the footsteps of Nelson Mandela, Patrice Lumumba, Steven Biko, Desmond Tutu, MLK etc.Maybe then he could carry that Nobel Peace Prize with honor and courage. But no he chose EGO and ignored his conscience and he will have to live with that for the rest of his life. His wife and girls will also have to live with that and that will be a bitter pill to swallow.
+19 # Jerry 2012-05-30 13:15
What war are you talking about? There can be no war on terrorism. It is a tactic, which the U.S., under Obama, uses. Has he put out a hit on himself? If he is acting on human intelligence, he is acting on hearsay - a very poor level of evidence.
+34 # Smiley 2012-05-30 13:31
If he was an "honorable man" he would give his peace prize to Bradley Manning.
+8 # Michael_K 2012-05-30 16:47
Quoting Smiley:
If he was an "honorable man" he would give his peace prize to Bradley Manning.

Hear, hear!!!!!!!
+2 # RMDC 2012-05-31 04:33
Instead, he's going to send Manning to prison for life and Assange, too. The noose is tightening around Assange. Obama may have him just in time for the election campaign.
+4 # Kwelinyingi 2012-05-30 15:38
But who among cold blooded killers don't themselves honorable?
-13 # dick 2012-05-30 12:18
If a US citizen was defending Iwo Jima with the Japanese, would he have had a right to a trial before he could be "shot at"? US citizens participating in planning & executing MEGA-Death attacks on US civilians is fairly new; old answers don't fit well. I have a right to be protected from ANYONE planning a terrorist attack, especially a MEGA-Death attack, anywhere near me. It is NOT REMOTELY FEASIBLE to arrest such people for extradition. Either we KILL them, or they will kill us. We need just procedures, but we're in a new & extremely dangerous situation. Perhaps some judicial review would limit Cheneys from killing for sport & profit. But we can't NOT defend ourselves because there are Dicks out there.
+21 # bluepilgrim 2012-05-30 13:50
There is nothing new here -- even irrational fear pumped up by jingoism and and rulers who want more power.

Mega death? The only side reponsible for, or cabable of, a million deaths here is the US.

Iwo JIma, btw, is a Japanese territory, so it was the Japanese defending it from the American attack during the war. One can argue the attcaks was justified, but it was not the US who was "defending" it. Get the word right.

As for defense, it is the US who has been the agressor all over the world which has brought on the terrorist tactics of those in other countries.
+20 # bluepilgrim 2012-05-30 12:18
The core issues are not the constitution, law, terrorism, and so forth, but anomie, greed, power, fear and delusion -- those are what is determining what is happening. As a nation, we've lost it. We are off the track, at the end of the road, and heading over the cliff. What was once nefarious actions by evil or fearful ideologues are now open national policy.

The empire is dying; the question is how much of what is worthwhile canbe preserved, how violent the death throes will be, and what can be built in the hole it created. That's up to the mass of the people.
+8 # brux 2012-05-30 19:01
> The core issues are not the constitution, law, terrorism, and so forth

Yes, they are, they have to be, because we cannot change the "anomie, greed, power, fear and delusion" part of the human equation.

The Empire is doing fine, it's just fueling itself by jettisoning the middle class and can do that as long as they middle class do not really see it or care.
+2 # bluepilgrim 2012-05-30 19:52
I'm not sure I want to say 'human equation', because it sounds too much like they normally prevalent. Anomie isn't - it's the breakdown of normality. The others are not evenly distributed but more common with the oligarchy -- excpet maybe fear or delusion.

Law *should* be a core issue, but that's the problem.

Also I'm not sure how much of the middle class don't see or care, or if it's just not knowing what to do and feeling disempowered (I hear things like "you can't fight city hall" a lot).

But no -- the empire is unsustainable and dying.
+13 # Doggone 2012-05-30 12:27
WAR is outmoded, stupid, it gets us know where fast except dead or hated. All nationalism and screaming about 9/11 aside, we've been tricked over and over by the same dark cabal behind the scenes who come up with a black-op to scare the s*#t out of people and to get them to hate the other side, the us vs them gambit. And guess what? we're suckers every time. History should tell us this stuff but instead we're fed lies and glorious crap to make us feel better about the people we miss and the ruined landscapes. Obama can't win no matter what he does, the right hate him for being black and a democrat, the left hate him because he isn't left enough. He is stuck between a rock and a hard place and everyone in the world gets to shoot darts at him and try to drag him down. Stop listening to news it is mostly lies spread by the same cabal who brought you Irag and Afghanistan.
+19 # josephmichael1949 2012-05-30 12:28
It seems to me that the point of the article is to raise, if not dispose of, the difficult question of what limits, if any, exist on the "imperial presidency" in the context of the modern terrorist threat. If that threat justifies any action by the executive, then the constitutional limits on presidential power are in tatters. If the president wants to kill me, my due process rights are limited to the consultations that take place internally in the administration? Surely that does mean that the Bill of Rights and the rest of the protections in the Constitution are thrown out the window. And then the terrorists win, no?
+16 # Old Uncle Dave 2012-05-30 12:34
Imagine how many more people would be protesting in the streets if Bush/Cheney were still the president, doing what Obama is doing.

This is why the owners will make sure he gets another term.
-5 # Amir Mashay 2012-05-30 12:37
I used to fantasize about being president and what I'd do and wouldn't do until Obama became president. Now I can be honest and say I really don't know. I also don't think most people do either, nor are they equipped to. Most of us can criticize articulately at best. Freedom of speech. I'm glad he hit Ben Laden, and rest.
+27 # Vardoz 2012-05-30 12:49
911 was truly a game changer that has only favored the military, oil companies and the rich. Then lying about Iraq and our BS mission in Afghanistan. I noticed when the Russians left they weren't plagued by threats from Afghanis. I just saw a documentary about the war there on Independent lens and it looks like such a mess. p=Poor, young, immature American kids getting killed and maimed for nothing. Poor Afghanis telling them to leave them alone. And this is what we are spending billions for during a Depression here? While our kids can't even afford college, no other nation wants to be there and we have 51+ million with no health care, few jobs and low wages!!!!! It's simply criminal- and a gigantic abuse if power at our cost. It seems hard to believ that 911 wasn't a plan. There were a lot of out made right before it happened. If Bush and the military feel OK about killing almost a million Iraqis, 3,000 Americans are nothing to them- They have no regard for man- kind. They are immoral and then after going into Iraq based on lies they tortured!
+22 # Vardoz 2012-05-30 12:50
And created the Ptriot Act that is worse then ever 10 yrs later.
+12 # Dale 2012-05-30 13:31
Well, if Obama takes "moral responsibity" for killing people he is an immoral assasin. Belongs in jail along with his predecessors, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield CIA killers and torturers and their lawyers who found "legal" justificaiton.
+3 # indian weaver 2012-05-30 13:32
kewlinyingi is right. i wrote to the Nobel committee after their egregious award of the Peace Prize to a cowardly baby obama. i told them they should all resign. i'd never again have any respect for the Nobel Peace Prize, having it awarded now to an international torturer and terrorist the president of amerika. if obama had any integrity, he would have refused to accept the nobel peace prize. he's uglier than dumdum dubya, a fawning doe capitulating to real power: money, and he did that the second he stepped foot in the Black House. He is executioner. No Justice for Bin laden, justice means bin laden would have been brought before a judicial legal court. obama is like Stalin, a power unto himself, damn all laws, amerikan and international.
+18 # alanvance 2012-05-30 14:26
Years ago (I was in my teens) I encountered for the first time the word "terrorists" as a description of resistants to a foreign occupation. The resistants in this case were members of the Maquis, the French guerillas of WWII. To the German occupier their acts of resistance, which included bombings, assassinations, and sabotage, were terrorism. I keep this in mind when I read that resistants to American occupation or American acts of violence are labeled terrorists. The answer to terrorism, as defined by the German Army of 1943 and affirmed by the Bush and Obama administrations , is to cease to be occupiers and to foreswear acts of war.
+3 # RobertMStahl 2012-05-30 14:37
The system is corrupt and must be changed. Therefore, how much is just outright misguided by this piece, as much as I like where it is trying to go, but is not.

1. B Obama puts Kim in charge of the World Bank, the guy in charge of world AIDS.
i. Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS by Gary Null. True journalism based on science and the most significant (i.e. indicative) scientists of the day, worldwide, and there for many years, ignored to this day by people calling themselves journalists.
ii. Then, there is this one, more recent,

2. (What else has been missed tossed down the rabbit hole?)
+1 # Urbancurmudgeon 2012-05-30 15:17
Charles Pierce is a very intelligent writer and usually right on the money but I have to agree with Skeptical 1247 in that he is way of base on this one. If you want to beat on Obama it should be for his backing of NDAA and soft pedaling attempts to take away our rights as Americans. Cheney and Rumsfeld would have been dancing over these lists. Obama ir seems, treats them as serious business. This does not make what he is doing any more palatable to the far left but it is better than sending our kids to fight wars that the far right started and maintained. More on this in
+6 # Michael_K 2012-05-30 16:52
Quoting Urbancurmudgeon:
Charles Pierce is a very intelligent writer and usually right on the money but I have to agree with Skeptical 1247 in that he is way of base on this one. If you want to beat on Obama it should be for his backing of NDAA and soft pedaling attempts to take away our rights as Americans. Cheney and Rumsfeld would have been dancing over these lists. Obama ir seems, treats them as serious business. This does not make what he is doing any more palatable to the far left but it is better than sending our kids to fight wars that the far right started and maintained. More on this in

I agree wholeheartedly. The only way to "end the post-9/11 world" would be to eliminate the DHS boondoggle, to eradicate any and every bit of the so-called Patriot Act, and completely restore the Constitution and all the individual liberties and rights and protections from predatory government that are enshrined therein.
+8 # Kootenay Coyote 2012-05-30 18:13
Regardless of condition when elected, whoever’s president is corrupted by the Establishment institutions.
+7 # brux 2012-05-30 18:52
> You can argue that, in doing what he's doing, the president
> is acting in accordance with longstanding policy, and even
> that he's acting in the best interest of the nation, but you
> cannot argue that he is upholding the Constitution he
> swore to preserve and protect, because he's not. And no
> pet lawyer can say that he is.

Brilliantly stated.

This is due to money buying politicians, but taking money out of politics will not be allowed to happen. Money will find another way and do whatever it wants.

What's the answer?

I think we need to revamp the whole country, the Constitution, the economic system, but that cannot happen, because our cover of civilization is just a thin veneer that is barely held on and mostly relies on people deluding themselves into thinking it even exists at all. The rich and powerful just do what they want.

That has not worked out so bad in America - except for specific abuses that could be corrected. Now, the elite have learned to disregard and even pillory the public, other countries, the American people, even those left in the government who want to do good.

The only real solution is draconian taxes on the rich - 70-80% and a wealth surcharge, which is tantamount to violent revolution since it will not be allowed to happen.
+7 # ShamanStarseed 2012-05-30 20:35
Did a 767 hit the Pentagon? Did one go down in Shanksville? No and No, or else we'd have seen wreckage and bodies. Did the jets crashing into the Twin Towers cause three buildings to collapse into their own footprints? Absolutely not, unless somehow the laws of physics were circumvented? Did we go to Irag to look for WMDs like we were told by the government? No, we went there for oil, as was even admitted by Alan Greenspan!

So, how can you write that Obama ordered the murder of Osama? You're going along with what are obviously grandiose fabrications! Osama was a shill, a scapegoat to direct the anger of the American public against so that we would invade Afghanistan. Lies, lies and more lies were used to fool the public. Why even give these government lies any semblance of credibility, when the writing is all over the walls that 9-11 was a false flag operation and that Al Qaeda = Al CIAda! As Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister said, "The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed." By mentioning the murder of Osama as if it were the truth and not just a concoction is in itself throwing your weight behind lies intended to fool Americans into going along with these murderous corporate wars. If they lied about the attacks on 9-11, it follows that everything else told to us are just more lies! When the TRUTH about 9-11 is common knowledge only then will we see an end of the post-911 world.
0 # sabiha1 2012-06-02 01:50
A wolf upstream considers a lamb downstream an enemy for muddying the waters while drinking,and worth eliminating.Thi s is the US policy whichever party is in power.Legality and morality are extinct.
0 # wilma 2012-06-02 08:58
Kudos, you are right on target with the excellent piece "The End of The Post - 911 World."
We all should take moral responsibility for our government's actions and in doing so choose our leaders wisely. Failure to do so has resulted in many ugly situations.
Is is perfectly clear to me that our so called leaders are not conducting themselves according to The Constitution and have not been doing so since at least That Day in 1964 in The Tonkin Gulf; That is The Day I stopped trusting our government, but I still continue to be an active & informed citizen.
I do not believe there have been any 'just' wars, but there may have been some necessary ones such as ours with England - The Revolutionary War. WWII could probably have been prevented, but certainly not by appeasement. It then occurred as the only alternative to stop blood lust and tyranny. Once the world courts worked out territory for the State of Israel they were overrun as soon as Independence was declared as though Israel's Right to exist was fabricated by Israel itself.

War may be a science to and the US has its own War College.

I do know that no 'Executive' order should declare a war or deprive anyone of legal council or overrule any deliberation of the Justice Department. Our Executive Branch has gone wrong to be allowed so much power; We, I am sure, will pay dearly for these actions and I am not referring to any 'just' or 'unjust' war.

sincerely, Wilma

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.