I agree with his third paragraph and the memo itself raises a dangerous precedent after Obama. What if a Michele Bachmann became president? Remember when she said liberals in the US house of Representives were traitors?
After reading the memo and comments, I'm thinking of the movie 'Minority Report' taken from a short story from Philip K Dick. There is no test outlined to determine if someone is a high ranking member of al Quaeda. There is no requirement to prove beyond reasonable doubt, by preponderance of evidence, by anything whatsoever, that someone is an imminent threat. In fact, the individual cannot even sue the government to prove he does not meet the requirements for "legal assassination." The only possible legal recourse anyone could have is to sue the administration after he is assassinated and claim that he did not meet the administration's own definition. This, of course, is impossible.
Wyden has, on more than one occasion, left the american public with only cryptic hints at substantial government wrongdoing. He has said things like "if the American public ever found out what we are told in our committee, it would be a massive scandal." Yet Mr. Wyden seems to refuse to leak these kinds of details. He's PRECISELY in the position where leaking information is both justified and actually demanded by his obligation to his constituents and the nation at large.
So, in short, the only reason I have any criticism for Mr. Wyden is that he's the only one with the proper ethical center to be in a position to not act on those ethics for the public good in a meaningful way.
= new reply since forum marked as read
