oleeb's picture

    Assassinations Of Citizens On Orders From The Emperor

    Glenn Greenwald, almost alone---even on the internet, has been documenting the increasing lawlessness of the Obama administration and particularly the extension of the illegal, unconstitutional claim to have the authority to order the killing of citizens of the United States without so much as the slightest bit of evidence or due process of law.  This is the sort of issue where every progressive citizen and every citizen who cares about the rule of law should be up in arms in protest of such lawless, tyrannical usurpation of power by any executive including the sainted Barack Obama.  There simply is no basis in law for this outlandish claim, yet who do we see, other than Greenwald even in the progressive blogosphere challenging this dangerous and frightening usurpation of power by the self proclaimed Emperor?  Do we see this issue being brought up by any of the few progressive voices on television like Olberman or Maddow?  Do we see anything about this affront to our Constitution at TPM?  If these actors have had anything to say about it, it has been precious little considering the magnitude of the assault on the rule of law this represents.  Does Markos Melitsos or Moveon have anything to say about this outrage?  What on earth could justify the silence and acquiescence of anyone who believes in the rule of law, but particularly on the left with respect to the arrogant contempt for the Constitution this represents?

    I don't care at all who is in the White House or what party they belong to when it comes to matters as basic as this.  The question is not partisan in the slightest.  It boils down to whether you support the United States Constitution and the limits it specifically places on the authority of government precisely to prevent this very sort of thing or not.  No hero worship of the current leader can justify or excuse illegal behavior of this magnitude. 

    The idea that any President, under any circumstances, has the authority to order the murder of a United States citizen on his word alone is an outrage because it is illegal, immoral, and the behavior of a tyrant.  If allowed to stand, this criminal activity, portends only worse and more extreme usurpations in the future by even less scrupulous characters than our current amoral leader who has obviously abandoned any pretense of observing the rule of law in this country unless it suits him just as any Emperor would have done in ancient Rome.  Could there be any more obvious illegal act?  Could there be any more blatant trampling of Constitutional authority? 

    Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Constitution or our heritage as a free people should understand how unacceptable such actions are.  Anyone who does not condemn this illegal usurpation of power and trampling of the Constitution is complicit IMHO.  If citizens will not defend the Constitution then who will when the government openly abandons it and spits on the authority of our most basic law?

    Here's an excerpt from Greenwalds column today:

    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?

    You can find the whole column here:

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations/index.html

     

    Comments

    Excellent post.

    Josh Marshall is laboring non-stop about teabagger violence, while we have a Dem government that kills its own citizens without trial.


    I read the NYT and Wash Post articles about this, and read Greenwald. I agree that this needs to be soundly refuted by the other two branches of government in order to stop this unitary executive abuse of power. It is reprehensible that any executive, regardless of party, would authorize such a blatant transgression. It should be roundly and openly condemned.

    I wrote Congressman Henry Waxman and called his office in order to demand a Congressional investigation into this. There needs to be outrage and there needs to be recognition. We have a FISA kangaroo court to approve wiretaps, but we have no oversight over assassination? That's preposterous.

    My only quibble with the NYT and Greenwald is the acceptance that an anonymous senior former Bush legal official can be taken it his or her word. To use that anonymous source in order to say that Obama is taking this further than even Bush is shoddy. We don't know how long this official served in the administration nor do we know this individual's actual level of clearance in the administration to know these things. Given Greenwald's excoriations of anonymous sourcing and access abuse in the past, to use it in order to buttress his own point is hypocritical.


    here's the washington post article for those interested:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040604121.html?hpid=moreheadlines

    Because he is a U.S. citizen, adding Aulaqi to the CIA list required special approval from the White House, officials said. The move means that Aulaqi would be considered a legitimate target not only for a military strike carried out by U.S. and Yemeni forces, but also for lethal CIA operations.


    I cannot help but to wonder where the Wapo thinks we can find "special approval from the White House" for assassinations in the Constitution? It galls me that they simply report this illegal activity as if there's nothing out of the ordinary or even suspect about it.


    did you see this:

    http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/39014


    According to both Jerome Starkey (who’s primarily responsible for initially blowing up NATO’s official story on this), and to the New York Times’ Richard Oppel, someone tampered with the evidence at the scene, most likely the special operations forces conducting the raid. The tampering ranged from digging bullets out of walls to digging bullets out of people and then washing the wounds with alcohol.

    Remember that survivors of the raid said that the special operations forces denied the wounded medical treatment and prevented survivors from going to get medical help for an extended period of time, during which one of the women and one of the men who were mortally wounded died.

    That means special operations forces were busy digging bullets out of walls and/or people to cover their asses while the innocent people they shot bled to death.

    disgusting is what all of this is!


    This terrorist did not give up his citizenship because it protects him ...in a host of ways but just like bin lauden he is still responsible for the deaths of his fellow Americans...! The first amendment protects the right to speech but his has been treasonous and culpible...Operating outside the US but against the American people...Is their ever a sense of justice!?


    Hmmm, my gut agrees with you. He seems like a bad guy who probably has had a hand or two in lots to kill Americans.

    Fortunately, people don't live and die by "my gut."

    But maybe, you say, Obama has access to a lot more information than I do. That'd be true. I also find it far-fetched that the President would put a guy on an assassination list without good cause.

    But in our system people aren't executed based on "just trust me." The evidence must be presented in open court. The people must be able to observe the process to make sure it works and to make sure it's fair, not just to insure justice in this individual case but to insure justice going forward.

    So even if you believe that the President knows just what he's doing and that Awlaki is a murder who has it coming to him, this is not the way we go about things. The process is important too.


    Assassination isn't justice.


    In this country, justice used to mean a concrete allegation, trial and verdict.

    Then we had a bunch of progressives screaming hysterically about civilian trials for foreign terrorists, in full compliance with our legal system and values.

    Where are these progressives now?


    Yes and they are criminal activities taking place outside all law, domestic and internation. This sounds very similar to what has been found repeatedly in Afghanistan when our soldiers murder innocent civilians: cutting bullets out and otherwise destroying or contaminating evidence at the scene of the crime in order to maintain their cover story.


    Consider, in our current world, where wars against the United States are conducted by operatives in civilian clothes, that we identify an important operative overseas. He has not merely advocated war against us, but is involved in the planning and execution of operations designed to kill Americans in the U.S. because they are Americans. His enemy is not the individual victims, but the nation.

    Imagine further that he is a native of Yemen, let us say, and is conducting operations from there despite the designation by the Yemeni government that he is part of an insurgent group at war with that government. If we target him, lives of innocents may be spared. If he grant him immunity because he wears no uniform, innocent lives may be lost - the next Christmas Day bomb mission, for example, may succeed.

    These are the enemies we confront these days - the ones carrying no flag and wearing no uniform, but who are more rather than less dangerous for all that. To fail to act against them would be an act of negligence on the part of leaders sworn to protect the nation against its enemies.

    Wait, however. Imagine in contrast to the above that the one working to kill us is a U.S. citizen who finds haven abroad from domestic legal enforcement instituions. Should his citizenship grant him special status?

    In my view, it should. It should accord him a status that is more reprehensible, more despicable, more dishonorable than that of the hpothetical native-born Yemeni I cited above. He is, for these reasons, doubly deserving of the full measure of our rage.

    And yet, we are in fact doing something of the opposite. We are granting him extra consideration rather than less, simply because of a citizenship that he did nothing to earn and has done much to disgrace. It is probably reasonable for special review to apply to these circumstances, but this is for legal and political reasons, not moral ones.

    I have seen nothing in this post and the above comments to date to refute this position. It is my sense that a few extremists on the left are instead engaged in an unfortunate effort to search every action of our government in hopes of vilifying our leaders, no matter the intellectual contortions they need to justify their position. This, I believe, will tend to discredit them in the eyes of their fellow citizens, including liberals, who view the world through a less distorted prism but one more attuned to the visceral understanding that innocents have the right to be defended by their government.

    I hope that the views expressed by the extremists will not be confused with the views of liberals in general.


    His father says he is innocent. You say he is not.

    If only there was something, some sort of system, something set up to where we could weigh these different claims, some kind of court, or trial for citizens...or we could just shoot them like you want. And you call me an extremist!


    Allow me to retort:

    Consider, in our current world, where wars against the United States are conducted by operatives in civilian clothes, that we identify an important operative overseas. He has not merely advocated war against us, but is involved in the planning and execution of operations designed to kill Americans in the U.S. because they are Americans. His enemy is not the individual victims, but the nation.

    5th, 6th, and 7th amendments confer inalienable rights to US citizens. This individual is granted the right of due process, trial by jury, and protection from illegal search and seizure.

    Imagine further that he is a native of Yemen, let us say, and is conducting operations from there despite the designation by the Yemeni government that he is part of an insurgent group at war with that government. If we target him, lives of innocents may be spared. If he grant him immunity because he wears no uniform, innocent lives may be lost - the next Christmas Day bomb mission, for example, may succeed.

    The ticking time bomb scenario does not trump or abrogate the United States Constitution. That is the binding legal document for US citizens. This cleric is entitled to be arrested and given a trial by jury of his peers. The evidence needs to be presented and weighed by an impartial judge and jury. These are the facts of the game.

    I have seen nothing in this post and the above comments to date to refute this position. It is my sense that a few extremists on the left are instead engaged in an unfortunate effort to search every action of our government in hopes of vilifying our leaders, no matter the intellectual contortions they need to justify their position.

    Now, I am an Obama supporter. I may even be a victim of Hopenosis. But I have a brain, and it still functions.

    That statement is a straw man. The Constitution of the United States refutes your position. We are in no legal or moral position to kill people based on what the President believes.

    Your sense needs to be fine-tuned. You are using the same threadbare logic that has been applied to torture, extraordinary rendition, detention in lieu of trial, inhibition of an attorney from their clien, warrantless wiretapping, withholding of photographic evidence of war crimes, etc.

    We need to be true to our binding legal documents and moral principles. There is no point in saving lives if the standard of living for all becomes increasingly oppressed. There is a cost/benefit analysis called ethics. I think you should study it.


    Fred, I'm surprised at you.

    Criminals deserve fair and open trials.

    Presidents should obey the laws.

    You believe both of those things, don't you?


    The Constitution does not protect citizens who are fugitives from U.S. justice. If Awlaki voluntarily surrenders to authorities and demands a trial, he should be given one. If he continues to try to kill us from beyond the reach of our justice system, the U.S. Constitution should not, and does not, in my view, protect him from just retribution designed to defend our citizens against his lethal intentions.

    I will retract that statement when the SCOTUS rules otherwise, if others here are prepared to concede that a court ruling in favor of the Admnistration eliminates their claim that its acts are unconstitutional.

    I'm willing to predict the outcome with reasonable certainty. I suggest that the Constitutional argument will prove too flimsy in the eyes of the courts to nullify the reasonable judgment of this Admnistation - one likely to be supported by most intelligent Americans across the political spectrum. Are other predictions to the contrary to be offered by those who have commented?


    I think Glenn Greenwald would argue this:


    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?


    Yes of course I believe those things, but I believe your argument plays into the hands of right wingers who ridicule the Administration for acting as though Al Qaeda warfare against us is a matter of criminality rather than war. Those claims were focused on some efforts to try defendants in civilian courts rather than military tribunals when the defendants are in custody within the U.S., and within the reach of the court system. To suggest we adopt a criminal code approach to those making war against us from outside would invite even more ridicule, and justifiably so.

    As I suggested above, I'm confident the courts will distinguish between criminal offenses and acts of war, and will not judge an act of war to be a criminal act merely because it is conducted by a citizen. Until that proves untrue, I'm aware of no law or constitutional provision that is being violated. I'll be surprised if the courts disagree, and I hope that those who comment here on the importance of playing by the rules will consider a decision of the courts to be a rule they should honor.


    "The Constitution does not protect citizens who are fugitives from U.S. justice."

    - You're wrong.

    The constitution prevents fugitives from using the US court system from abroad.

    http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fugitive-from-justice/

    It doesn't authorizes the killing of fugitives.


    Your rationale does nothing to demonstrate that what the government plans on doing is legal in any way Fred. That's the problem here.

    Furthermore, your quick acceptance of the government story demonstrates a real naivete considering the dozens upon dozens of examples of the government lying about such matters in recent years during this conflict and the one in Afghanistan, not to mention the US government's biggest lie of all time about WMD. Killing citizen's by fiat without evidence or any sort of due process is precisely what the founders intended to prevent because that is what King's do: not elected President's. That's why we have a constitution: to prohibit exactly what is under discussion here. All the rationalizations in the world dont' change the fact that this activity is as illegal as the day is long Fred.

    And one last thing: what if you're wrong and there is (as so often has been the case) no real evidence, only suspiscion and they murder this man at the behest of the President? What then Fred? What do we tell his family? The rule of law prevents such situations because under the rule of law the rights of the accused are preserved and the accused have the right to confront their accusers. This is so fundamental to American law I am shocked it has to be stated.


    I'll make a further prediction. Even an occasional Justice (probably in the minority) who might argue that criminal laws should apply to citizens outside of our jurisdiction who have conducted acts of war against us in the past, I'm willing to predict that no Justice will challenge our right to go after those who are continuing to try to kill us. I don't see it as even close.


    Fred, the Constitution does not permit shooting people simply because they are accused. It doesn't. Not anywhere or under any circumstances. That is illegal.

    And one more thing Fred... he isn't even accused except by secret governmental judgement. If the government has evidence of anything beyond this man having opinions they don't like then let them bring the evidence and charges to court.


    The Constitution does not protect citizens who are fugitives from U.S. justice.

    Really? So, if I allegedly committed a crime and fled the country, the President could kill me?

    Where's the precedent?

    If he continues to try to kill us from beyond the reach of our justice system

    Are you admitting here that assassination is beyond the justice system? Or, should I rephrase and say that while arrest is beyond the power of the President, murder is within that scope.

    Either way, you need to corroborate your assertion. If arrest is somehow beyond our purview, then how is murder within it?

    I'm willing to predict the outcome with reasonable certainty. I suggest that the Constitutional argument will prove too flimsy in the eyes of the courts to nullify the reasonable judgment of this Admnistation - one likely to be supported by most intelligent Americans across the political spectrum. Are other predictions to the contrary to be offered by those who have commented?

    I will predict that the federal courts would find this use of power unconstitutional. I will also predict that the President would not be held accountable for his actions in this regard, and everything would be swept under the rug for the next generation to handle


    that you support the right of a president to murder a citizen out of fear of what the right wing might say, or because that president says they are a terrorist, without any due process, shows how scary and corrupt your ideas are.

    and if a court says that is so, then we should fight against that decision.


    I've addressed the legal issue above. At the risk of belaboring the point, those who place themselves outside the reach of our law and continue to try to kill us forfeit the protection of our laws. To suggest otherwise for citizens is to discriminate against non-citizens. No-one should be immune to attack if he is trying to conduct war against us.

    The courts will decide the legal and constitutional issues here if a challenge is raised, but the outcome is in little doubt.


    We could eliminate anti-abortionist terrorism against our citizens by simply rounding up and shooting all the anti-abortion exremists. Are you okay with that too? They are terrorists after all who have killed their fellow Americans.

    Well, as much as I detest and abhor the criminals who terrorize doctors, women and abortion clinics I am not for rounding them all up and murdering them based on their beliefs and no further evidence. That's lawless, tyrannical, unconstitutional and downright unAmerican activity. And if we do this to the anti-abortionists then who is next? Maybe those who oppose US militarism? Nuclear Power? The divine right of Obama to spy on the American people illegally? This is sick and undemocratic thinking and these are the tactics of totalitarians like Hitler, Stalin and Mao.


    We discriminate against non-citizens by denying them the right to vote or run for President, too.


    In other news, assassination of non-citizens still peachy.


    the right wing chafes at the idea of observing the rule of law and it's purpose is to weaken and eventually elminate it Fred. Your position plays right into their hands in the mistaken belief that this is a political game instead of a question of whether or not the rule of law will be supreme in this country.


    I've never seen a "shoot on sight" type order for an international fugitive before. If he's accused of a crime and there's a warrant for his arrest then the proper action is, of course, to seek to detain or capture him or to negotiate for his arrest and extradition.


    In Obama's America bringing such a lawsuit would find His Majesty's Justice Department arguing State Secrets prohibit the suit from moving forward as they have time and again. When you suspend the law to kill and then evade the law using the bogus argument of state secrets, how then does the citizenry find out what is actually being done in their name? They don't Fred.


    Is it not true that many "terrorists" accused by us have been found to be not guilty at all? http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/19/guantanamo-detainee-innocent.html

    How do you know that this particular man is a "terrorist"?

    i recommended this diary and encourage everyone else to do so.


    The Constitution, Lalo, doesn't protect anyone, citizen or non-citizen, from attack if that individual is engaged in warfare against us. A fugitive enjoys limited protections against actions against him for past wrongs, but no protection whatsoever for lethal actions he is currently planning or assisting.


    I've addressed the legal issue above. At the risk of belaboring the point, those who place themselves outside the reach of our law and continue to try to kill us forfeit the protection of our laws.

    Do you think that the people we accused of terrorism (but were found to be not guilty) should have been assassinated in the first place just in case?


    I've addressed your point in response to other comments. The Constitution protects no-one who is engaged in planning and conducting lethal operations against us from outside the reaches of our justice system. If you want to predict that the courts, including SCOTUS, will rule otherwise, "go for it".


    So reasonable Fred,

    You are completely wrong.

    Art.I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution:

    "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

    A bill of attainder, as we learned from Congress passing one recently against another dire menace to the State (ACORN), is a law directed against a specific entity, including a person. It was a disgrace that this 'law' was 'passed.' Our Congressthingies would not pass a fourth grade civics class.

    Art. II, perhaps? The C-in-C has the power "to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States."

    The C-in-C commands the Militia.

    oh, fuck it, Fred, you illiterate asshole, read the Constitution yourself, and look up the numerous words you don't know.


    See above. The distinction I make is this. If someone has been accused of a past offense, one can try to arrest him under circumstances where that is within the realm of possibility. If he is shooting at you, you can shoot back.

    I would continue to challenge anyone to predict that the courts will rule otherwise in this case.


    Say Fred, Greenwald the extremist has this "update" to his article and your comment fits this bill perfectly. Any response to this direct question? Hmmmm?

    "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."

    So Fred, to reiterate Greenwald's question about your confidence this guy is quilty of something:

    "How do you know that his is?"


    If he is shooting at you, you can shoot back.

    this is not the issue. The president gave special permission for this person to be murdered. No trial. No due process.


    Sorry, should read "How do you know he is?"


    Indeed!


    THANK YOU!!!


    No, Fred. Citizens should be protected by their government. It isn't the job of the government to determine who these "innocents" would be, unless they're accused of crimes and their guilt or innocence established in court. This isn't about radicals gleaning reasons to attack the present administration; it's about ending evil policies from the previous adminstration once and for all. Unless Obama foreswears Bush's approval of targeted assassination, he owns it.


    Fred, you're full of it. The Constitution specially says that no government can take a citizen's life or liberty without due process.

    The government will try and rationalize what it's doing using the same logic that you and Cheney used - enemies without uniform, blah blah.

    It's one thing when someone is killed as a result of military action. It's another thing when the government singles you out and puts you on its hit list.

    It's astonishing that you're using Bush-style moralizing to find excuses for Obama. That's cheerleading of the worst kind.


    Well that's the thing, Fred... nobody says this guy is shooting at us. They say he's "plotting."

    That he's engaging in war against the US isn't cut and dried, is it? Don't get me wrong, I happen to think he's guilty as heck of that but what I think isn't important here, that's what courts are for.


    Certainly, assassinating them first renders the question of their guilt a theoretical matter only, as every banana republic knows.


    Fred Moolten, paying lip service to the law and then questioning the "honor" of anyone who disagrees with you.

    You deserve the honor of being the biggest hypocrite ever posting on these blogs.


    Because it's the new normal. Is the President authorizing crimes? Well, "every President does it."
    And they say racists have been given carte blanche (no pun intended) to air their hateful views wherever they want. No one is held to any standards anymore; the fish rots from the head.


    Oleeb, I wonder at what point impeachment of this President will be justified, if it is not already.

    Note: Impeached does not mean convicted.


    Greenwald is confusing "guilt" concerning past offenses with responsibility for current efforts to kill Americans. As I mentioned earlier, the question of how to deal with past wrongs when the offender deliberately places himself outside the reach of the law may be complex, but when the offender is currently trying to kill you from a place where you can't arresst him, complexity disappears. If he's shooting at you, you shoot back.

    There's a loose analogy with police engaged in actions against a violent criminal. They can't shoot him for past offenses, but they are permitted to use lethal force if they judge him to be an immediate threat to the life and safety of others. As some will note, this policy can be abused, but none will argue that it should not exist, and that lethal force should never be used even when lives are in danger. I won't pursue the analogy, because Awlaki is at war with us, not engaged in a police gun battle, but the justification for lethal force does hold when it's needed to protect innocent lives from current dangers, rather than merely to arrest someone for something in the past.

    I've invited everyone who comments to render a prediction on how the courts will rule on a challenge to this policy. My prediction - they will rule in favor of the Admnistration's policy either by a lopsided majority or unanimously. I'll welcome predictions from others to the contrary if accompanied by a prediction of how the court would reason in ruling against the Administration. I expect there will be challenges, and so we'll have a chance to observe the outcome.


    Awlaki being fingered by the President is, I suppose, a new level of heinous given that he's a US citizen. But I confess I'm as or almost as upset by his Presidential memos that state he can and does target foreign nationals also, based on the flimsiest of evidence: two 'reliable sources' who say a person is a 'terrorist', or a 'drug lord'.
    And yes, I've written about it either two or three different diaries, because I think it's appalling, and again, not to much sqwaking comes from anyone about it.
    CCR and the ACLU speak out against it. Here's some IPS news from Feb.

    http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50236


    You have entirely evaded the question Fred.

    It was/is quite direct and simple and posed by a Constitutional lawyer and you're not a lawyer Fred, yet you claim to know the law better than Greenwald?

    Can you answer the question please Fred?

    How do you know this man is guilty of anything?

    Don't both with other distractions and arguments Fred. Just answer that simple question.

    I dare you.


    "In an admission that took the intelligence community and its critics by surprise, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged in a congressional hearing Wednesday that the U.S. may, with executive approval, deliberately target and kill U.S. citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorism."

    It should not have surprised anyone that the DNI's job is no longer to deny. Breaking the law is now something to openly AFFIRM, just to make sure you get a condemnation from Glenn Greenwald.


    When the police are involved in a shoot-out with a suspect there is very little ambiguity. There's either a gun battle or there isn't.

    In this case they've ordered the assassination of the guy based on charges of conduct that, through his family, he denies. Now if they went to arrest him and he shot at the arresting agent and he was killed in a gun battle that'd be one thing.

    An assassination is quite another.


    'just to make sure you get a condemnation from Glenn Greenwald.'
    ???


    Cause Greenwald, you know, hates America.


    Now you're catching on.


    Although wouldn't he be legally justified in shooting anyone he reasonably believed represented the US Government, as a matter of self-defense, since he has been told the Government wants to shoot him first?

    What would a law-abiding (or even non-law-abiding) citizen do once he or she learns he has been targeted for assassination by the President (I mean US Government), and then receives a knock on the door from a friendly Government official? Anyone?


    The Constitution provides a remedy: trial and conviction of treason.


    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/31/glenn-greenwald/

    This is DEMOCRATIC swampland, and perfectly respectable:

    "I am not a religious reader of Greenwald--he does go on, and on--and it's possible that I missed extensive posts in which he praises the Armed Forces or makes positive suggestions about how to track possible communications between terrorists abroad and their confederates here. But I sort of doubt that."


    Trust Fred to have unlimited reverence for Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.

    Next thing you know, Fred will be telling us that the right wing will be all over us if we don't nominate a Roberts-Scalia clone to replace that extreme leftist Stevens.


    There is no difference, neither in terms of the constitution, nor in terms of justice, between murdering a citizen and murdering a non-citizen.

    An oppressive government is always afraid of its own citizens more than of foreigners, and always begins by murdering foreigners to first legitimize murder, so that it can then be applied to citizens.

    Everything that the US government does in Afghanistan will one day take place on US soil.


    If anyone here is willing to 'walk the talk', go to Yemen, join hands with Anwar al-Awlaki and become human shields. Live with the guy.

    If Obama goes ahead and kills you, with or without killing Anwar al-Awlaki, it would prove your point that in fact none of us are safe.

    It would conclusively prove that the risk of assassination is not just for US citizens who are members of al Qaeda, have trained suicide bombers, or who have promoted violence against Americans and America.


    And there's certainly plenty of precedent for that

    1


    Yes, well, that role is reserved especially for innocent foreign civilians. We don't even have to bother counting them. So there you go in the world of non-persons. We had hoped we'd joined a more enlightened, civilized, humane and just world. Guess not.


    What the constitution actually says:

    "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    As far as I can see, there's no provision in the Constitution that turns these provisions off. Maybe Fred, however, has found one?


    That tallies with my take, ED.


    It would conclusively prove that the risk of assassination is not just for US citizens who are members of al Qaeda, have trained suicide bombers, or who have promoted violence against Americans and America.

    His dad denies he's a member of Al Qaeda.
    Which terrorist did he train? Awlaki has not admitted to doing such thing. Do you believe the U.S. allegations blindly? Why don't you believe Awlaki and his father blindly?


    When has this happened? Documentation please?


    I think it's a bad policy, just don't think it's been carried out yet.


    Give this man a cigar!


    the President has the authority to drop a bomb on someone waging war on the US, even a US citizen. What's the difference if he authorized a bullet in the guys head instead? The difference is Congress never authorized a War on some guy in Yemen.


    Yes, I could definitely see how the assassination order makes arresting him, uh... problematic. Though if he shoots back in self defense while our forces attempt to capture him, well... I think we know that's a scuffle that's not bound to be resolved in a court.




    Uh ... Zip . . .

    As to you point here...

    NYT and Greenwald is the acceptance that an anonymous senior former Bush legal official can be taken it his or her word. To use that anonymous source in order to say that Obama is taking this further than even Bush is shoddy.

    But but but ... Then there'd be no basis whatsoever for this story to rile up the look look look what this administration is doing crowd . . .

    ~OGD~


    ANyone who observes the written laws and procedures under the constitution has to have an allowance, or margin of error, inserted alongside their assertion that it is not allowed, it is not law, therefore it doesn't happen. It doea. Every law is broken. EVery statute has it's corruption. EVery boss breaks even his own rules. And many a slip between a cup and a lip.

    I remember being in high school, and being bullied by a guy who had a weapon in his locker. This was before Columbine of course. I told, and their response to my parents was, well, that can't be; we don't allow weapons at school.

    President's can do as much as any other person, which is alot. Only they have a support system we don't have. The only drawback today is 24 hour media and poparrazi recording every minor detail. I don't put anything past a successful career politician. BUt I don't think I am in danger of being assassinated at my low rank and station.


    After all these months, running into years, I still have no idea who Barack Obama really is or what he might possibly stand for. Certainly targeted assassinations don't make an easy fit with "The Audacity of Hope".


    They've been Obama'd.


    We have to stop using events or circumstances as an excuse to circumvent our constitution and our laws.

    In every instance where we abandon due process we grow less secure and less free in our daily lives. Obama is pursuing the same lawless track of his predecessor. Our entire framework of governance is predicated upon following this due process. The process may be cumbersome but there are no alternatives in law which permit changing this simply for the sake of expediency.

    I'm unaware of any constitutional provision which permits executing a citizen without due process having been followed.

    Could it be that pieces of the Patriot Act which citizens still have not been made privy to, and which no court could possibly uphold, allow for this?


    Or more interestingly, no basis whatsoever for the vast majority of complaints raised by Democrats during the Bush years. It seems anonymous sources are fine ... as long as they don't say something you'd rather not hear.

    It's a specious complaint at best, particularly in light of Obama's leak-dominant press methodology.


    He's exactly what he thinks you want him to be. Until he's not - then he never said he was in the first place. One thing we can be sure of, after this administration is over he and his inner circle will be RICH, RICH, RICH.


    I'm pretty sure they're all foreigners anyhow.


    Me too. I was pretty crushed to see just how totally lacking in controls our policy really is. I swear, every day I become more convinced that Obama's ordained role is to neutralize opposition to Bush policies from the left.


    Oh for God's sake.

    If we listened to you guys, we wouldn't get to kill ANYTHING.




    Give me THE ACTUAL source . . .

    Wait ... Better yet. Verify with three separate sources.

    And don't give me this bullshit sales pitch that everyone was doing it when Bush was shitting on the carpet. Many were. Many were not. That's just another vague line of crap you seem to like to hide within. "Someone was doing it so it only makes sense that everybody must have been doing it."

    And as to what "...Obama's leak-dominant press methodology..." has to with any of it is all in your pretzel logic brain...

    Yammer Yammer Yammer . . .

    Blah Blah Blah . . .

    ~OGD~




    Oh brother . . .

    You are so far out of your league on this subject that it's not worth the time of day to bother discussing this issue with you ... But I'm sure many others will dutifully attempt to sway your opinions and bullshit.

    ~OGD~


    Fred Moolten: "The Constitution does not protect citizens who are fugitives from U.S. justice."

    Yes it does! There's no exception to the Bill of Rights for fugitives. You're making things up.


    The Constitution doesn't even use the word "citizen." The Bill of Rights -- as worded -- applies to "people." The Supreme Court has since made some distinctions between rights of citizens and rights of people, but I'm not sure the founders would have seen it the way the Court has seen it.


    It is a very novel idea, you know, to apply the war powers to individuals. It's especially troublesome when wars are no longer declared and there's no clear process for identifying with whom we are at war. The power you for which you seem to be advocating seems to be very ill defined--approaching an arbitrary power of the king to kill whomever he or his deputies decide is a danger to the country. That doesn't sound to me anything like what our founders intended when they gave Congress the power to declare war and to make rules governing captures on land and sea.


    It is a very novel idea, you know, to apply the war powers to individuals. It's especially troublesome when wars are no longer declared and there's no clear process for identifying with whom we are at war. The power you for which you seem to be advocating seems to be very ill defined--approaching an arbitrary power of the king to kill whomever he or his deputies decide is a danger to the country. That doesn't sound to me anything like what our founders intended when they gave Congress the power to declare war and to make rules governing captures on land and sea.


    Then this whole messy reality is just one big conspiracy without end. You may as well take your soma and be done with it. Or learn to fire a weapon. Maybe you could get a couple tea party pals?


    KAPOW! to the moose...


    To paraphrase Rutabaga, Fred is an absurd verbose pathetic little creature groveling in his self-importance. Or maybe I'm paraphrasing myself.

    In any case, we have rules enough for engaging criminals who are in the process of trying to kill someone, as we have rules for those engaged in warfare.

    Unfortunately we stretch those rules, with tools like Fred, to say Saddam Hussein who we want to assume was manufacturing WMDs. But being a superpower means never having to you're sorry, and Fred's A-Okay with that, since his mantra that trumps the Constitution is "Be afwaid.. be vewwy afwaid".

    So in Fwed's bwave new woruwd, aside from evewywun being Elmuh Fudd, evewywun's a tewwuwist that Obama can pwotect us fwum by offing them with the snap of a finguh. So we can sweep safe at night, I pwesume. Give 'em hell, Fwed.


    "Vast majority"?

    I think the complaints against Bush were well documented and sourced. I also think most of the complaints against Obama are well documented and sourced.

    And I think my complaint is quite valid. We don't know who this source is... It could be someone trustworthy, like Alberto Gonzalez. Get my drift? Or can you set aside your spite towards me long enough to recognize the problem?


    Yeah, plus if you look at the Big Picture concerning extra-judicial assassinations, it can
    look awfully scary. Those of us who give Obama a pass on it aren't looking at the implications for the future: Will you be comfortable with President X asserting the same power? Those of us who believed Obama would vacate the Unitary Executive Powers were sadly mistaken; I wished more of us were outraged.


    Forcing journalists to disclose their sources is yet another way of intimidating journalists into writing the 'official' version of what happened. 'Anonymous' often signifies someone who does not want to get fired by their employers. As for Gonzo as truthteller- well, if Gonzo decided to unburden himself of some secrets from the Bush Admin, it would be the case of the Cretan saying all Cretans are liars. Whether this could be true, false or neither depends on your semantic theory- which itself is a matter of derivations from 'sources,' which your own judgment must assign credibility to.
    The credibility on the line is the journalist's own- and ours. Using unreliable sources mean the journalist will become unemployed.
    Unless- unless that source is the Government. Taking the Government's word against literally anyone-no matter how credible- never cost a journalist a job, if you get my drift.


    I've missed you around here.


    Who was that *masked cloud*?


    I disagree with you, respectfully. Anonymous sources exist for a reason: whistle-blowing. If a source is afraid of repurcussions, then by all means a journalist should protect their sources.

    But anonymous sources have become the common practice for beltway gossip and disinformation. Let's take this NYT story as an example. What does this source have to lose by exculpating the Bush administration? Nothing. What would the journalist lose by naming the source? Nothing but their own credibility if the source is untrustworthy. That is why I sarcastically named a serial liar like Gonzalez, who was proven himself to say anything if it shines a better light on himself and his actions.

    Greenwald has been highly critical of this practice and has devoted many blog inches to its abuse. He has rightly pointed out that using anonymous sources is about access: a journalist who wishes to maintain close ties to the administration will act as a stenographer because their livelihood depends on it. This means that most beltway journalism is bilge. Hell, look no further than Judith Miller.

    So, for Greenwald to latch onto this anonymous source as proof that Obama has taken the unitary executive further than Bush did is disingenuous. It is a minor quibble, but a quibble nonetheless. Greenwald only proves his thesis by setting his own actions up as an example: we agree with anonymous sources that tell us what we want to hear and hate the ones who do otherwise. This is how disinformation is allowed to fester and reinforce partisan thinking.

    IMO, the Bush administration has the potential to be guilty pretty much all crimes against humanity. I think it is silly to push outrage against this president by trying to exculpate this particular crime through an anonymous source. What actually impresses me about all of this is that journalists are starting to practice even a modicum of their job and pointing out that these crimes disguised as authorizations are actually occurring.


    Easy fit for 'audacity,' though.


    I've revisited the comments since my own last comment yesterday. I don't believe I've seen any that refutes the points I was trying to make. So as not to belabor the issue, I'll summarize:

    1. There has been no Constitutional provision or law cited that nullifies the president's authority to attack one or more individuals trying to kill Americans from outside the country.

    2. Wars these days are often conducted by those who wear no uniform and carry no flag. This does not immunize them from military retaliation if they are conducting war against the U.S.

    3. (perhaps most salient in that it has been consistently misrepresented above): The justice system addresses alleged wrongs that have been committed. There are challenges to this principle when the wrongdoer is outside the reach of the system, but that is not the issue here. The president has not been authorized to kill Awlaki for past actions, but for what he is doing now, which is engaging in attempts to conduct terrorist operations against Americans. In other words - if someone has done wrong and can be arrested, put him on trial. If someone is shooting at you, shoot back. The distinction between the role of the courts in judging past offenses, and the military in protecting us against ongoing threats, is paramount to our security.

    4. The courts will almost certainly side with the President in regard to the main points of this principle, either unanimously or by a lop-sided margin. I don't know whether it will reach SCOTUS, but if so, I predict that most or all Justices, including a majority of the four liberal members, will side with the Administration. It's a commonsense principle, and I see arguing against it as a vain effort to impose an ideological overlay on something that will be seen as straightforward by most Americans as well as the justice system.


    Your M.O. is predictable and stultifying.

    Your points were refuted, and you are just too stubborn to catch on. This is not the first time this has happened. This is not the first you have developed a summarization that is exclusive to your points alone... and includes the backhanded slap that nothing you've seen is sufficient to refute your unassailable logic.

    And you always drop these nuggets into the bowl shortly before the system is due to flush.

    To whit:

    The Constitution of the United States does cover criminal acts of war. Diachronic posted the salient portions. I posted the portions of the Bill of Rights. When other salient portions of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld were discussed, you were noticeably absent from the conversation. There is SCOTUS precedent that guarantees certain fundamental rights to the accused, citizen or non-citizen.

    The president has not been authorized to kill Awlaki for past actions, but for what he is doing now, which is engaging in attempts to conduct terrorist operations against Americans. In other words - if someone has done wrong and can be arrested, put him on trial. If someone is shooting at you, shoot back.

    Here's your money shot, Fred. You are using a right wing trope: acts of war are not criminal acts and thus beyond the scope of the justice system. Therefore, if the president is convinced using his or her own metric of substantiation, then the president reserves the right to kill individuals through covert means. Those of us who disagree with you see what Awlaki is allegedly doing and call it a criminal act. An act that deserves to be reviewed by a jury and judge. Why is the Hutaree, who are allegedly doing much the same as Awlaki, given their due process, while Awlaki can be killed because he is in Yemen. Last time I checked, we have a military base in Yemen. We have an embassy in Yemen. We have more than enough power and discretion in this matter to make an arrest. In my opinion, your argument falls apart here.

    Further, your argument is incredibly damaging to the fabric of democratic society. War is word that has become elasticised to the point that we can declare a war on ideologies, substances, and mental fugues. War has simply come to mean the reservation of our government to use deadly violence. War has become a smokescreen for overt and covert force. You are aiding and abetting this cognitive dissonance because you are a bedwetter. You should be ashamed, but I don't think your programming carries that emotion.


    your argument is incredibly damaging to the fabric of democratic society. War is word that has become elasticised to the point that we can declare a war on ideologies, substances, and mental fugues. War has simply come to mean the reservation of our government to use deadly violence. War has become a smokescreen for overt and covert force. You are aiding and abetting this cognitive dissonance


    Thank you. Hear, hear!


    Tea and Soma? You buyin', jason! Some for me, pleeze... ;-)


    The quote from the NYT is not an example of Greenwald using anonymous sources, technically; it is him using the NYT.
    It doesn't matter to me if Bush is better or worse than Obama. I suspect that this does matter to many, so he is using this 'source' (again, the NYT) for rhetorical purposes- how it is 'partisan?'
    I'm not sure. Is he trying to preach to the converted (progressives who want to damn Obama with the words 'worse than Bush?") or is he trying to appeal to liberterian Repubs, or to moderates who think Bush went too far? Probably all of these groups.

    Greenwald has his agenda. So do I. So does the NYT. I think my speculations above are plausible guesses into why Greenwald would throw 'anonymous source' into his "source." Why would the NYT want to protect this anonymous source? Why would the source want to be anon in the first place?

    Maybe the source is an ongoing one, whose info is given on the conditions of anonymity, and this just happened to be something said by the source under these conditions. Maybe the source- the "former senior legal official in the Bush admin"- wants a job in a pro-Obama think tank. Or an ultra-conservatative one- it isn't to Bush either.

    I appreciate your attentiveness to details, and your sarcasm (no snark here). The source may be Gonzo. Like me, though for vastly different reasons, he is concerned about his employment status.


    Meant to say, of course, that "senior legal official's" words aren't flattering to Bush, either.


    oh, and- Saying Greenwald is trying to 'prove' that Obama is worse than Bush is pretty damn uncharitable, because it's piss-poor 'proof' to use someone else's anon source as any kind of proof of a contention that is unprovable anyway. At most, he is being rhetorically excessive in his use of a non-anonymous source (there is a name at the top of that NYT article, isn't there?).


    Brilliant rebuttal.


    Unlike some big talkers around here, I actually don't have to sling a bunch of hypothetical shit about getting along with the "other side" while never leaving my own comfort zone - I already have plenty of "Tea Party Pals". This is Ron Paul country, only way NOT to have a few such friends is to be a raging dickhead. That's one reason (of many) I know 99% of what TPMers think they know on the topic is absolute bullshit (yourself included).

    And I'm a pretty damn good shot already, thanks. Come on out to Idaho - I've got a great .45 trap gun that would be perfect to teach a tenderfoot like yourself some basic firearms skill.


    Might want watch those assumptions. I qualified expert on both the 9MM and the M16 as recently as 2001. Granted, not the most up-to-date quals, but it's like riding a bike.

    No surprise that you missed the underlying point of my comment, which is that allusions to vast conspiracies and Obama as some sort of Manchurian Candidate sound as unhinged as the Tea Partiers you are so quick to denigrate.

    Despite the fact that you have friends with those leanings, which typically causes one to doubt their prejudice not dig in further.


    1. There has been no Constitutional provision or law cited that nullifies the president's authority to attack one or more individuals trying to kill Americans from outside the country.

    Are you familiar with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? There is a thing in there about killing people.

    Anyway, reverse the argument: if these "individuals trying to kill Americans" have, say, a law that allows them to kill Americans, does that make it OK to do so?


    1. There has been no Constitutional provision or law cited that nullifies the president's authority to attack one or more individuals trying to kill Americans from outside the country.

    And what provision has been cited that gives the president this authority? You have a very weak understanding of our Constitution, Fred. The president does not, under our system, have all powers not explicitly denied him by the Constitution. Rather, he has only those powers explicitly granted him. I don't see this "power" of the President to target individuals for assassination anywhere in the Constitution. What I do see, however, is a statement within the Constitution that clearly denies the government (including the president) the power to suspend habeas corpus (except during an invasion or insurrection, neither of which is occurring presently). And to target an individual for execution without any due process is clearly to suspend habeas corpus. So it seems to me that the Constitution no where grants an assassination power to the president--yet it does prohibit him clearly from suspending habeas corpus. If you are trying to derive this assassination power from the war powers or the president's role as commander in chief, you'll need to make a stronger argument for your case, because applying the war powers to specific individuals is indeed a novel--and I'd add quite dangerous--idea. Yes, you can kill combatants on the battlefield as a tactical necessity. But as the Geneva Conventions make clear, even a combatant accused of war crimes or other criminal activity has a right to due process before being punished. This idea that we can convict and kill without any process other than the president's command is novel, pernicious, and clearly contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.


    1. There has been no Constitutional provision or law cited that nullifies the president's authority to attack one or more individuals trying to kill Americans from outside the country.

    Whoa!!! Really? So what is next Fred? Summarily killing drug dealers because certain drugs kill Americans? I look at it there is nothing that gives him permission to do that. MY POV is based on the notion of the rule of law, habeus corpus and the innocent until proven guilty. And the 'argument' that the president has the right to do that since 'we are at war' doesn't cut it either. Up until Bush a state of war were acts of aggression committed by sovereign nations. I reject the Bush administration redefining what 'war' is. So are you saying all the president has to do is utter the word 'war' and he can do whatever he/she wants?


    Latest Comments