Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Obama authorizes assassination of American citizen
Topic Started: Apr 8 2010, 03:52 AM (993 Views)
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Hat tip to Daniel at WTF. This, from Salon, is scary.
Quote:
 
Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen
BY GLENN GREENWALD

(updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)

In late January, I wrote about the Obama administration's "presidential assassination program," whereby American citizens are targeted for killings far away from any battlefield, based exclusively on unchecked accusations by the Executive Branch that they're involved in Terrorism. At the time, The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of Americans, and Priest suggested that the American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was on that list. The following week, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, acknowledged in Congressional testimony that the administration reserves the "right" to carry out such assassinations.

Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield. I wrote at length about the extreme dangers and lawlessness of allowing the Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens far away from a battlefield (i.e., while they're sleeping, at home, with their children, etc.) and with no due process of any kind. I won't repeat those arguments -- they're here and here -- but I do want to highlight how unbelievably Orwellian and tyrannical this is in light of these new articles today.

Just consider how the NYT reports on Obama's assassination order and how it is justified:

The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday. . . .

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president. . . .

"The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words," said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. "He’s gotten involved in plots."

No due process is accorded. No charges or trials are necessary. No evidence is offered, nor any opportunity for him to deny these accusations (which he has done vehemently through his family). None of that.

Instead, in Barack Obama's America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens -- and a death penalty imposed -- is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone's guilt as a Terrorist. He then dispatches his aides to run to America's newspapers -- cowardly hiding behind the shield of anonymity which they're granted -- to proclaim that the Guilty One shall be killed on sight because the Leader has decreed him to be a Terrorist. It is simply asserted that Awlaki has converted from a cleric who expresses anti-American views and advocates attacks on American military targets (advocacy which happens to be Constitutionally protected) to Actual Terrorist "involved in plots." These newspapers then print this Executive Verdict with no questioning, no opposition, no investigation, no refutation as to its truth. And the punishment is thus decreed: this American citizen will now be murdered by the CIA because Barack Obama has ordered that it be done. What kind of person could possibly justify this or think that this is a legitimate government power?

Just to get a sense for how extreme this behavior is, consider -- as the NYT reported -- that not even George Bush targeted American citizens for this type of extra-judicial killing (though a 2002 drone attack in Yemen did result in the death of an American citizen). Even more strikingly, Antonin Scalia, in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, wrote an Opinion (joined by Justice Stevens) arguing that it was unconstitutional for the U.S. Government merely to imprison (let alone kill) American citizens as "enemy combatants"; instead, they argued, the Constitution required that Americans be charged with crimes (such as treason) and be given a trial before being punished. The full Hamdi Court held that at least some due process was required before Americans could be imprisoned as "enemy combatants." Yet now, Barack Obama is claiming the right not merely to imprison, but to assassinate far from any battlefield, American citizens with no due process of any kind. Even GOP Congressman Pete Hoekstra, when questioning Adm. Blair, recognized the severe dangers raised by this asserted power.

And what about all the progressives who screamed for years about the Bush administration's tyrannical treatment of Jose Padilla? Bush merely imprisoned Padilla for years without a trial. If that's a vicious, tyrannical assault on the Constitution -- and it was -- what should they be saying about the Nobel Peace Prize winner's assassination of American citizens without any due process?

All of this underscores the principal point made in this excellent new article by Eli Lake, who compellingly and comprehensively documents what readers here well know: that while Obama's "speeches and some of his administration’s policy rollouts have emphasized a break from the Bush era," the reality is that the administration has retained and, in some cases, built upon the core Bush/Cheney approach to civil liberties and Terrorism. As Al Gore asked in his superb 2006 speech protesting Bush's "War on the Constitution":

Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution?

If the answer is yes, then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited?

If the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, imprison American citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?

Notice the power that was missing from Gore's indictment of Bush radicalism: the power to kill American citizens. Add that to the litany -- as Obama has now done -- and consider how much more compelling Gore's accusatory questions become.



UPDATE: When Obama was seeking the Democratic nomination, the Constitutional Law Scholar answered a questionnaire about executive power distributed by The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage, and this was one of his answers:

5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

[Obama]: No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.

So back then, Obama said the President lacks the power merely to detain U.S. citizens without charges. Now, as President, he claims the power to assassinate them without charges. Could even his hardest-core loyalists try to reconcile that with a straight face? As Spencer Ackerman documents today, not even John Yoo claimed that the President possessed the power Obama is claiming here.



UPDATE II: If you're going to go into the comment section -- or anywhere else -- and argue that this is all justified because Awlaki is an Evil, Violent, Murdering Terrorist Trying to Kill Americans, you should say how you know that. Generally, guilt is determined by having a trial where the evidence is presented and the accused has an opportunity to defend himself -- not by putting blind authoritarian faith in the unchecked accusations of government leaders, even if it happens to be Barack Obama. That's especially true given how many times accusations of Terrorism by the U.S. Government have proven to be false.



UPDATE III: Congratulations, Barack Obama: you're now to the Right of National Review on issues of executive power and due process, as Kevin Williamson objects: "Surely there has to be some operational constraint on the executive when it comes to the killing of U.S. citizens. . . . Odious as Awlaki is, this seems to me to be setting an awful and reckless precedent. " But Andy McCarthy -- who is about the most crazed Far Right extremist on such matters as it gets, literally -- is as pleased as can be with what Obama is doing (or, as Gawker puts it, "Obama Does Something Bloodthirsty Enough to Please the Psychos").



UPDATE IV: Keith Olbermann's coverage of this story was quite good tonight -- see here.

Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big John
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
this is the patriot act in action. i see nothing different. when bush implemented it, it was freedom on the march. Dissent was giving comfort to terrorists and we were either with him, or with the terrorists. NOW, if we support him in the same campaign, we are supporting tyranny. It's almost funny when you think about it. Just change the leader's skin color and the opposite values apply.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Patriot Act. The President is excercising his powers under the Constitution and authority given him by Congress under the Authorization for Use of Military Force to deal with enemy combatants. There is nothing extraordinary about the fact that this guy is a US citizen. The Supreme Court under Quirin upheld the President's authority to treat a US citizen as an enemy combatant. Again, this has nothing whatever to do with the Patriot Act, the evil Booosh or, for that matter, the evil Roosevelt (president at the time of Quirin).
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big John
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
this computer I'm using doesn't always post when I hit send.

Quirin's rule languished from 1942 to 2001. Everything changed after 9/11.
Edited by Big John, Apr 8 2010, 05:12 AM.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
What on earth are you talking about? Nothing changed. Quirin became Supreme Court precedent when it was handed down and has remained so to this day. 9/11 had no effect on it whatsoever.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
What's special about US citizens? If he can assassinate a foreigner, I don't see why he can't do the same to a citizen. Citizenship is just a piece of paper, not a Divine Right to be treated differently from the rest of the world, barring queing up at immigration for freaking hours, as I know all too well.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big John
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
from wikipedia:

Quote:
 
Change of meaning in the United States

In the 1942 Supreme Court of the United States ruling Ex Parte Quirin, the Court uses the terms with their historical meanings to distinguish between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants:

Quote:
 
Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.


In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks the United States Congress passed a resolution known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) on September 18, 2001[4], wherein the Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution. Using this authorization granted to him by Congress, on November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism"[5]. The administration chose to call those who it detained under the Presidential Military Orders "enemy combatants". Since then, the administration has formalized its usage of the term by using it specifically for detained alleged members and supporters of al-Qaida or the Taliban. For example

Under the provisions of the Secretary of the Navy Memorandum Implementation of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for Enemy Combatant Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Cuba ... An enemy combatant has been defined as "an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces." [6]

This lead has been followed by other parts of the Government and some section of the American news media. The result of this new usage means that the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in the context of the article in which it appears as to whether it means a member of the armed forces of an enemy state, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaida held prisoner by the United States.



The important thing is that the power over this switched from Congress to the chief executive. My argument is that no one batted an eye in the wake of 9/11. When liberals were screaming that it was a blow against the constitution, they were accused of giving comfort to terrorists. NOW, the opposite is true. It's fashionable now to oppose everything that was implemented amidst much pomp and circumstance in late September 2001.

THAT's what I find interesting.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

I'm not an expert in any special rights American citizens have when overseas or this or that, compared to foreign enemies........but if that moron is helping terrorists attack the US, he is in an enemy and should be captured if possible, killed if necessary.

Insert "all enemies, foreign and domestic" line here...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
What you have cited here is precisely what I stated in my first post to this thread:

Quote:
 
The President is excercising his powers under the Constitution and authority given him by Congress under the Authorization for Use of Military Force to deal with enemy combatants. There is nothing extraordinary about the fact that this guy is a US citizen. The Supreme Court under Quirin upheld the President's authority to treat a US citizen as an enemy combatant.


Now what part of that is a "switch of power from the Congress to the Chief Executive"? The Congress authorized the use of military force and under that authorization the Chief Executive excercised his powers under the Constitution as affirmed by Quirin. There was no more a "switch of power" after 9/11 then there was after Pearl Harbor. That power has always resided with the Chief Executive in time of war or use of military force.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big John
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
okay so we're not in disagreement then. I just think it's IRONIC that a law that has been on the books for more than 50 years is now getting scrutiny because someone has allegedly exercised their authority to use it. the blame is placed with Obama, when it should be placed on the laws and acts that give ever-increasing absolute power to an individual.

I could have sworn that there was a "dead or alive" reward out for Osama Bin Laden. Maybe I was mistaken.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
I opposed this behavior when GWB was in charge, and I oppose it now. It doesn't matter to me if it's law. It's unconstitutional, let alone immoral and unethical. It violates 1,200 years' precedence of respect for the individual.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Big John
Apr 8 2010, 04:28 AM
this is the patriot act in action. i see nothing different. when bush implemented it, it was freedom on the march. Dissent was giving comfort to terrorists and we were either with him, or with the terrorists. NOW, if we support him in the same campaign, we are supporting tyranny. It's almost funny when you think about it. Just change the leader's skin color and the opposite values apply.
Nice try on playing the race card BJ. :rolleyes2:

WTF???

I agree with OT. Fvck this law! It needs to be overturned and abolished.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
OperaTenor
Apr 8 2010, 08:22 AM
I opposed this behavior when GWB was in charge, and I oppose it now.
+1
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Wow. If there are two or more people here who agree with me, this place *has* turned liberal...



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big John
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
I opposed it when GWB was in power and got called a terrorist sympathizer.

You can call it the race card if you want. I call it the GOP knee-jerk oppose-anything-Obama card. If Obama decided to give a $100 million dollar reward to anyone who could bring him the head of Osama bin Laden, the GOP would figure out a way to make people support amnesty for him.

It's the 180-degree turnabout that is most interesting for me.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Who in the GOP is opposing this?
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I see that BJ.

Mostly on the Democrat side but it also exists on the Republican side.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big John
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
for me, GOP is synonymous with conservative.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Big John
Apr 8 2010, 09:25 AM
for me, GOP is synonymous with conservative.
:lol:
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Big John
Apr 8 2010, 09:25 AM
for me, GOP is synonymous with conservative.
GOP does not equal Conservative. However, what Conservatives are against this.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Given that it follows huge debate and posturing about the rights we should grant to non-citizen enemy combatants, it seems a bit off kilter.

As a friend of mine is wont to say, if it weren't for hypocrisy they'd have no values at all.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
big al
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Consider an analogy. If someone is holding a gun and threatening to shoot hostages in an apartment, a sniper's shot to kill him and save the hostages is justifiable homicide. If he's holding a gun, there are no hostages at hand and no threat is imminent, he can surrender the gun and come out or risk the consequences of trying to fight or flee. I don't see this situation as being fundamentally different except the person in question is apparently in Yemen, not an apartment in Manhattan.

Am I misunderstanding what is moral and legal in such situations?

Big Al
Location: Western PA

"jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen."
-bachophile
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
big al
Apr 8 2010, 10:45 AM

Am I misunderstanding what is moral and legal in such situations?
I don't think it's that; to my mind the problem is that we don't know this guy's background, and need a trial to determine if he's even a threat.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big John
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Big Al, I don't understand the turnabout. A few years ago, an American citizen who supported Al-Qaida or the Taliban would have been lynched.

Now it seems that as long as you are an American citizen nothing short of complete amnesty is fair.

Hence the analogy to the beheadings in the other thread. I think this is an issue because Obama the democratic president currently in power approved it and the knee-jerk reaction is to suspect anything that the anti-christ beast does.

So, since he approved the assassination of a US citizen by invoking a law that's been on the books since WWII and which was given teeth in September of 2001, HE's the traitor.

It's just odd.

Just watch. Pretty soon the tea partiers will be burning flags and everyone will applaud and wipe tears from their eyes from the display of patriotism.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
You are confused about a few things. This "law on the books since WWII" was a Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court does not pass laws (or, at least, it shouldn't) it interprets the Constitution. In this case it found that what Rossevelt was doing was supported by the Constitution. In other words, this "law on the books" was in existence since the beginning of the republic. Next, this law ruling was not "given teeth" after 9/11. It was just as much in force in all the time intervening. Finally, where are these people who supported Bush and are now calling Obama a traitor for doing the same things Bush did? You seem to keep dancing around that one.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3