Re: [Redbadbear] Holder's speech at Northwestern

From RBB in response to Cornet Joyce's post re Eric Holder's speech at Northwestern.  Cornet posts this and I respond:   
"Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. "Due process" and "judicial process" are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process." [Eric Holder]

__________________________


I followed this -- Holder's justified summary execution of American citizens alleged/deemed in the company of foreign terrorists -- as best I could via some mainline media.  I don't think the liberal/left outlets mentioned it much at all. It's simply one more significant incursion of many into Constitutional rights.  But, at this point, lots of the people who would be yelling to high heaven had this been said as policy via a Republican administration, simply remain silent, eyes glazed. Getting Obama re-elected is their primary goal -- perhaps with the hope that, in a second term, he'll do the Good Things he promised in 2008. [That's become, for them, political correctness.]  And that brings to mind the key line in Joe Hill's best known song.

The civil liberties groups haven't done badly in getting the word out but sensible alarm hasn't caught fire in the quarters where it should.

If this current Presidential campaign is to mean anything positive, it may open up the Obama record in such a fashion as to spark critical thinking generally and even start the process of eroding the blinders of liberals and those in some of the small Left remnants who have had difficulty in coming to terms with the cruel reality of a long trail of broken promises coupled with a great many negative and dangerous deeds.  Labor has gotten virtually nothing from the Obama administration but it's likely that many of its leaders will bite tongues and support Obama -- this has been their political pattern since the Cold War era -- but a major question is, will much of the rank and file follow their lead or simply not vote?

History continues to move and the social justice challenges in this country and elsewhere grow mountainous. Ultimately, very probably with the heavy stimulus of much younger people, some tendencies -- healthy, homegrown, and radical -- will form in substance and eventually come together functionally and effectively. I'd see this coming sooner than later but, obviously, after the coming election and Whoever winds up in the White House.

Solidarity, Hunter Bear


HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis 
Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk 
Protected by Na´shdo´i´ba´i´ 
and Ohkwari' 
www.hunterbear.org 
(much social justice material)

See the Stormy Adoption of an Indian Child [My Father]:
http://hunterbear.org/James%20and%20Salter%20and%20Dad.htm

For the new, just out (11/2011) and expanded/updated
edition of my "Organizer's Book," JACKSON MISSISSIPPI -- 
with a new and substantial Introduction by me.  We are close upon
the 50th anniversary of the massive Jackson Movement of1962-63.:
http://hunterbear.org/jackson.htm

Personal Background Narrative (with many links):
http://hunterbear.org/narrative.htm


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: CornetJ 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 10:12 PM
  Subject: [Redbadbear] holder's speech at Northwestern


    
  "Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. "Due process" and "judicial process" are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."