Skip to main content

Be sure to follow @DailyKosComics & remember, you can get the NewsToons app here:

(We now join the State of the Union already in progress . . .)

. . . And to the sixteen-year-old boy from Denver, whose life was snuffed out just two weeks after his father from New Mexico was killed in the very same way, I say . . .

Great!  More of that!

For the state of MY union is strong!  And getting stronger!

Thanks to the efforts of my administration, we are a new nation, a nation whose government can kill its citizens at will.

Now, I know some will say, "What about the law?" "What about our Constitution?"

To those doubters, those unwilling to change, I say this:  If I do it, it's legal!

And if other high-level members of my administration do it, that's also legal.

See, this is what Democracy is all about--  people working together no matter where their office is located in the White House.

And to those unwilling to change, I say this:  

This is not "illegal" assassination, this is legal assassination-like "targeted killing," which is a change from illegal assassination.

These killings can only be carried out if there is an "imminent" threat.

(*Imminent does not mean imminent in the sense of the word imminent.)

The state of my union, is streamlined to eliminate the due process of the past.

There's still due process, it's whatever I do!

And to those who would question giving the White House the power to kill without judges, juries or even charges, I say this:

C'mon, it's me!  I'm hope, change, puppy dogs and flowers, I'm not George Bush!

Plus-- whether it's killing Americans or killing just plain ol' foreigners-- mine is the most transparent administration ever.

Originally posted to Comics on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:50 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  drones (5+ / 0-)

    Drones are so wrong--Getting US court approval is bullshit--it needs to be an international court if the drone does the nasty outside our borders.  Iran believes Obama to be a terrorist--if their courts agree, are you comfortable with them sending a drone over DC?

    Apres Bush, le deluge.

    by melvynny on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:10:56 AM PST

  •  But remember, Rmoney would have been worse! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, Brown Thrasher

    Of course... well...

    That's not saying very much, but still!


    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:14:46 AM PST

    •  AUMF currently allows military action within US (0+ / 0-)


      That's the power Barack Obama has, legally. Both Obama and Bush freely chose not to use the Military within the United States.

      Do you think Romney would have made the same choice? Because I don't.

      An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

      by OllieGarkey on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:21:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lucky us. (3+ / 0-)

        Thank you, BO, for not yet using the drones to kill us, especially since you can.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:35:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I know. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The point is, going after Barack Obama for legislation that was signed into law before he was even a senator is kind of ludicrous.

          It's sexier to talk about drones than it is to talk about the AUMF. But the AUMF is the problem.

          We can't fix the drones problem if we don't understand the underlying cause. And that cause is the AUMF.

          An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

          by OllieGarkey on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:37:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You keep asserting that about the AUMF. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shaharazade, badger

            I'm not so sure the AUMF, or any legislative act, can provide the authority to do what Obama has done within the US--or to any of its citizens anywhere--and actually remain within the constraints of the Constitution.

            •  The AUMF is essentially a declaration of war. (0+ / 0-)

              In times of war or emergency where military action is required,

              I don't think it should be legal, I don't think it should be constitutional, but let's look at what the constitution says, shall we?

              The war powers clause, Article 1 section 8 states that congress shall have the power:

              "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

              Congress declares war, congress sets the rules for war.  That's the law. That's how the law has evolved.

              And the AUMF gives blanket powers to the president to use the military against anyone he likes, as long as he calls the person a terrorist first.

              He has the power to decide. That is the blanket authority granted by congress to the office of the president.

              There were animal rights activists who were convicted as terrorists simply for writing letters. I'll give you info on that story if you like, the data is on a hard drive that's disconnected at the moment, so it will take time, but our issue isn't Barack Obama, it's the AUMF and the Patriot Act.

              An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

              by OllieGarkey on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 09:45:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's absurd (3+ / 0-)

                The AUFM, NDAA, FISA the odious Patriot Act and any other secret security laws and powers did not just fall from the sky. Both the Bush regime and this administration pushed them through congress using 9/11 as a reason. Obama has legalized and broaden the unitary executive and also via the courts and NDAA taken away our civil and human rights. The issue is Obama he's the commander in chief and p[resident as well as the legislation and all branches of the government. This administration's DoJ has fought hard to legalize and extend the Bush abuses of executive power.    

                •  I tend to disagree. (0+ / 0-)

                  The issue is congress, and has always been congress.

                  It is the duty of congress to keep the executive branch confined within due bounds. AUMF, NDAA, FISA, and the Patriot Act are all acts of congress.

                  What's this about "secret" security laws?

                  Is their some secret legal code out there that the american people aren't allowed to review?

                  Look, I'm not saying that Obama doesn't bear some culpability here, I'm arguing that we need to identify the source of the problem, and then deal with that problem.

                  That means looking at what's allowing this to happen. Now, we have a choice between a democrat and a republican.

                  And if you're going to argue that a third party candidate will ever be viable, I will kindly direct you to Duverger's Law, and explain that a Democrat fighting a left-wing third party leads to a Republican victory.

                  Obama is the best we get in the executive branch. The next in line is Clinton, and she's more hawkish than Obama.

                  So the solution is not to put our trust in a President that might not use AUMF and the Patriot Act, it's to go after congress, and find a congress that will axe both of those pieces of legislation.

                  Finally, the NDAA isn't all that odious, when you consider that everything in it was already covered by the patriot act and the AUMF.

                  All that stuff about indefinite detention? It already existed. They didn't need a new law, they already had one.

                  What's in the NDAA is some pretty incompetently written language. The president already has a blank check to violate the constitution as long as he says the word "terrorist" before doing it.

                  So this stuff about Obama pushing for the NDAA, yeah, don't buy that.

                  Now, you're right about the DOJ, but considering that many of them are Bush Administration hold overs, I didn't expect anything to change there.

                  No president, no executive in American history, has ever chosen to limit the power of the presidency. Not one. And no one ever will. Not even Fox News Contributor Dennis Kucinich. Not whoever it was the Green Party ran. No President will ever limit their own power.

                  That's the nature of the beast.

                  So if you want this stuff to go away, stop blasting someone who has no power to write legislation, and go after the branch of government that's supposed to be providing a check on executive power.

                  An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

                  by OllieGarkey on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 05:49:47 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  No (0+ / 0-)
            The point is, going after Barack Obama for legislation that was signed into law before he was even a senator is kind of ludicrous.
            Nobody is forcing Obama to kill massive amounts of people abroad. That's just nonsense. It's his choice, and his choice alone.
            •  So you have no problem with the AUMF, (0+ / 0-)

              just a problem with the way Barack Obama is choosing to use it?

              An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

              by OllieGarkey on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 05:50:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Anvilicious. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Look, I want to get rid of the AUMF as much as the next constitutionalist, but I feel like every other comic in the last few weeks has been about drones.

    Drones are a problem, but we're facing the existential threats of climate change and wealth inequality, and there are a stack of other problems that we need to talk about and work on.

    We get rid of the AUMF and the Patriot Act, we get rid of the drones.

    Problem solved.

    Because right now, drone strikes are completely legal, even under the constitution. Just like it was constitutional for us to kill confederate soldiers (American Citizens) during the civil war without giving them a trial.

    The AUMF allows the president to use the military within the United States. So if he used drone strikes within the US, he wouldn't be breaking any laws.

    We are technically at war, and we will be until the AUMF is repealed.

    An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

    by OllieGarkey on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:19:30 AM PST

  •  Sarcasm has become reality and vice versa. (6+ / 0-)

    Of course this is all offset by the Lilly Ledbetter Act.  Desmund Tutu asked what the fuck was wrong with America.  It starts at the top.

    "The Global War OF Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:24:50 AM PST

  •  You would think... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueyedace2, Woodrow Stool, reginahny

    ...This is the only issue in the world for some people.

    Simple question: In the years since Republicans successfully urged the disempowering of workers and unions in the Midwest, what has happened to those states economies?

    by Stephen Daugherty on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:37:46 AM PST

  •  Tipped + Recc'd (0+ / 0-)

    But move on from the drones issue already!!

    Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

    by aguadito on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 08:02:07 AM PST

    •  Why? They are still killing (3+ / 0-)

      innocent people!!! Every life counts!

      •   Universal human rights count (0+ / 0-)

        also. The drones are just the weapon of choice cause they don't require boots on the ground of sovereign states. Targeting those the spooks and the pres say are terrorist's or potential terrorists or even terrorist enablers allows the GWOT to kill, occupy capture or drone bomb anyone, anywhere in the new battlefield The World.  Drones are just one aspect of this Orwellain War on Terror. Jeeze it just nut's that people think as long as we have some god-awful declaration that a bunch of RW maniac's used to justify their neocon/PNAC global geopolitical wet dreams with these bogus new laws and reinterpretations of old laws, that some how this GWOT is legal and not unconstitutional.

        It's endless and the battlefield is the world. How can that be anything but against international law and all universal human laws. The Great Writ has been rendered useless our bill of rights are gone and all because of a amorphous enemy and a shadowy vague organization called Al Queda. Just madness and lawless to say this is a war, regardess of the AUFM. Which by the way was passed on blatant lies by the Bushies and their cohorts the Spooks, sick twisted lawyers, tortures and the MIC corporations like Halliburton and co.

        Not at all a single issue but part of the whole anti-democratic inhumane cloth our leaders call the NWO. Both Homeland Security and  The Great War on Terror make my hair stand opn end when I here them. Not to go Godwin but please this classic rogue nation talk. Srangely however as this tiome around we have no declared nation state declaration of war just a word Terror that can apply to anyone who opposes our country or should I say our multinationals vested interests.              

  •  Thanks for reminding me... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    why I no longer contribute financially to DailyKos.

    No one knows what it's like, To be the bad man, To be the sad man, behind blue eyes....

    by blueyedace2 on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 08:28:14 AM PST

  •  It's almost too subtle, though (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Next time, put Obama in a Nazi uniform and have him laugh maniacally after the "Great! More of that!" line. Or maybe a flashing arrow pointing at him that reads "Killer! Killer!"

    •  Need to include this "Executive" power is gift of (0+ / 0-)

      George W. Bush!

    •  Or maybe have a cartoon with him joking (0+ / 0-)

      .. about targeting the Jonas brothers for a drone strike.

      On second thoughts, that would be too far over the top to be even remotely credible, and would therefore bring any site that suggests it into disrepute. Surely no US president could ever be that insensitive and inhuman. It's even more ridiculous than the notion of a President turning the failure to find WMDs in Iraq into a protracted and unfunny joke, and we all know how that that could never happen, right?

  •  I know that America has never been as nice as we (0+ / 0-)

    think we are.  I realized this during the Viet Nam War.  The government lies.

    Considering that drones can be made anywhere in the world this may be the new cold war.

    This war on terror is a never ending war without end.  

    The use of drones to kill anyone anywhere must be regulated with clear procedures so all of use can see them.

    Like the bomb, drones are here to stay.

    I found the cartoon upsetting and disappointing.  Imagine what President Mittens would do with a drone.

    Psst!!!......Mittens you are more of a poor loser than I thought.

    by wbishop3 on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:14:40 AM PST

  •  Sure sounds like George Bush, over and over! (0+ / 0-)
  •  Of course we can kill Americans on our soil (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We did it just the other day. Remember? The cop killer?

    We can argue whether he had it coming (I think he did) but he didn't get due process. And the people who killed him weren't the President, they were just cops.

    The answer as to whether we can kill people without due process of law is obvious. The real question is whether we should, especially in other countries.

    •  This is the point that Mark and others always miss (0+ / 0-)

      Of course the police are going to shoot an armed madman. There doesn't need to be a court to approve it and it doesn't matter if he's an American citizen. He's a dangerous fugitive. That's exactly what Awlaki was. There was plenty of evidence about what he did. He had already been tried in abstentia in Yemen. The final decision to blow his sorry butt away was no more of a constitutional crisis that when a criminal gets shot robbing a 7-11.

      Quick, call the UN and the International Criminal Court! If armed criminals can be shot in the act of committing crimes, then by simple and completely ridiculous analogy, any of us can be shot at anytime, just cuz Obama feels ornery that day. This is BS, and the people saying things like this and defending pieces of human excrement like Awlaki are not protecting civil rights. They are doing a disservice to them.

      Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

      by tekno2600 on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 09:41:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site