Thursday, December 23, 2010


al·leged adj \ə-ˈlejd, -ˈle-jəd\ 1 : asserted to be true or to exist 2 : questionably true or of a specified kind : supposed, so-called 3 : accused but not proven or convicted
The Washington Post explains its support for the administration's position that it has the right to order targeted killings of American citizens abroad:
Executive decisions
Wednesday, December 22, 2010 
The Obama administration has a federal judge to thank for ensuring that executive branch and congressional leaders and not those in judicial robes will, at least for now, continue to call the shots on targeted killings. 
That determination was made in a case involving Anwar al-Aulaqi, the U.S.-born Yemeni cleric and al-Qaeda operative designated as a terrorist by the United States this year. Mr. Aulaqi is reportedly on a "kill list" of terrorism suspects for his alleged roles in the Fort Hood massacre and the attempted downing of a U.S. airliner by the would-be underwear bomber. Mr. Aulaqi's father filed suit to stop the administration from carrying out a strike against his son....  
Here's another editorial published in the same newspaper, seven years ago:
 Thursday, February 6, 2003; Page A36
AFTER SECRETARY OF STATE Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Powell left no room to argue seriously that Iraq has accepted the Security Council's offer of a "final opportunity" to disarm. And he offered a powerful new case that Saddam Hussein's regime is cooperating with a branch of the al Qaeda organization that is trying to acquire chemical weapons and stage attacks in Europe. Mr. Powell's evidence, including satellite photographs, audio recordings and reports from detainees and other informants, was overwhelming. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, called it "powerful and irrefutable."


  1. and your point is?

    Maybe, they lied once, so how do we know when they speak the truth?

    Seems to be mis-leading, your headline and the report from WP. Or are you reading between the lines?

    Only problem I see is that they do not question anything, like someone told them what to write.

  2. The point? 1) Blind faith in the judgment of elected government officials concerning matters of life and death is unwarranted; 2) Modern constitutions mandate a separation of powers for good reason.


Because all comments on this blog are moderated, there will be some delay before your comment is approved.