Posted on 04/07/2010 7:24:39 AM PDT by kristinn
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?
(Excerpt) Read more at Salon.com
The term "enemy combatant" is defined by the Geneva Conventions something to the effect of: "any person in armed conflict who may be detained under the customs of war".
You are right April. Nobody seems to do anything but gripe against the biggest terrorist of all - the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and his surrounding team of terrorists. Puzzling. CO
And people around here think I’m crazy for not trusting the government and believing that they’ll eventually just start killing Americans in America.
Oh yeah. That’s right. It “can’t happen here” and “we’re free” oh yeah. If you can choose to drink Bud Lite or Miller Lite and watch UFC or wrestling, that’s is the litmus test for freedom.
Not surprising at all ...
This is the way of Federal Government power. One President or Congress creates a law or rule that may seem benign or rare or extreme or even good in a particular context, and for downstream administrations it becomes SOP and gets used in ways most people never imagined.
This is why it is so frustrating to see so many on the left just love how Obama personalizes and demonizes Fox News or Sarah Palin, or any one else ... they are too short-sighted to see that once the precedent is set, the power can be used against them someday, or anyone.
The Patriot Act may seem in one administration to be a necessary updating of wiretapping law, and in the next, an invasion of privacy applied generally. Computerized medical records in the hands of the government are used one day to facilitate national health care, and the next to intimidate and deny due process and privacy rights. Student loans managed by the government are used one year to facilitate education, and the next to deny a political enemy’s children entry into college.
Maybe Obama using this extreme power will open the eyes of some of his apologists, and hopefully collectivists in general ... the government is NOT your friend, your Mommy, your Daddy ... it is a “force like fire, a dangerous servant and a terrible master” ...
>If the American citizen takes up arms against the United States, don’t they become a legitimate target?
Not necessarily; it depends on if you’re defining it as the institution itself (which surely is) OR as the _people_ [holding offices] of the institution (which EVERY member of the armed forces is possibly required to do under oath or affirmation).
The people on the left get sexually excited about the prospect of the government just killing people they think the government should kill.
Thanks for posting that tutstar. Yup, it’s all set up and ready to go. And the majority of these things are being done in the dead of night. CO
Its truly scary how inept / biased the press is.
That's what I thought. Non-citizens get better treatment than a citizen.
>Like others, I couldn’t help but check DU.
And what was the reaction, if any?
>Personally I don’t care if islamics are killed even if citizens. I thought that way under Bush and now hussein.
I _do_ care; very much. My mother and I disagree on rights & privileges for Islamic peoples. I sell her that once ‘we’ start limiting things based on religion it is only a matter of time before it is used against our religion.
>It’s hilarious watching a majority over on DU going the whole ‘it’s ok when WE do it’ dance. They can’t help it.
I would that there were consistency; there is a reason that Justice is supposed to be blind.
>That kind of wingnut drives me insane. They have no principles, it’s all about us vs them to those types.
I’m not sure about that. Though maybe I should clarify what I mean: as a group they may lack principals, but as individuals they all have values. {Whether those values are mainstream or righteous or evil is another matter entirely.}
Like a lot of evangelical/missionary-work there must be a lot of work ‘translating’ our message into their [individual] values for either dialog OR conversion.
>Suddenly war and privacy, 2 of the biggest things they complained about for 8 years are suddenly fine to them when it’s democrats that they insanely “trust” are in charge.
This DOES indicate that privacy & war aren’t the two biggest things; it may also be that those who DO have those as big values are “too ashamed to open their mouths.”
>Those types are mental children that should not be allowed to vote.
Unfortunately any “Intelligence” or “Current/Political Event” test that may be put to someone could be rigged; think of the ways things can be used against you before proposing a ‘limitation’ of some sort.
You are certainly not crazy FRiend. Your posts are right on. CO
wow... just wow... I am not defending this guy by any means.. but as an American Citizen he at least deserves a trial... non-American citizens is another issue for debate..
Ping Sister. Read the whole article. Quite something. CO
Zero has not declared Yemen as one of the ‘battlefields’ in the WOT...hell there isn’t even a WOT anymore according to his administration. To boot...didn’t Obama just reprimand Israel for running an assasination gig and killing some Hamas terrorist in DuBai? Now he is going to run the same kind of assasination gig and it’s suddenly OK? The man wants to bring foreign terrorists into America and give them taxpayer funded trials..yet he is going to target an American citizen for state sanctioned murder on foreign soil without a trial or due process?
You bet your ass this is because it is President Obama doing this. The man should be forced to live up to his own standards..should he not? Do you trust this marxist usurper? I sure as hell don’t and never will. His Homeland Security has already deemd right wing people and his own military as potential terrorists for Christ sake! How much benefit of doubt do you think we ought to extend to the American dictator?
well, at least he won’t have to worry about being waterboarded.
He deserves all doubt and No benefit!! CO
>You’re letting your imagination run wild.
>
>The term “enemy combatant” is defined by the Geneva Conventions something to the effect of: “any person in armed conflict who may be detained under the customs of war”.
And the US Constitution SPECIFICALLY prohibits both Ex Post Facto laws and Bills of Attainder; yet there was retroactive taxation of AIG/bailout bonus recipients... violating BOTH in one fell swoop.
This order is in direct conflict with the due process clause of the constitution, and is grounds for impeachment.
Obama: “Rules are for others, not for me!”
Already working on it...
So, Americans, with impunity, can engage in armed conflict in support of terrorist organizations against US forces, because the government bailed out AIG?
Wrong one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSx7nZQC2VI&playnext_from=TL&videos=7jpfkKi1B5U
Right one...
US “re-verts” are not true muslimes and hence do not deserve the full citizen treatment. Only non American “middle eastern” looking muslims can be considered pure by The 0.
So, Americans, with impunity, can engage in armed conflict in support of terrorist organizations against US forces, because the government bailed out AIG?
No; that’s not at all what I was saying. What I was saying is that our government only ‘believes in’ laws and rules when it suits them.
You brought up the Hague convention as a matter of law [the definitions thereof] and I countered with another matter of law. The ‘enemy combatant’ designation is a misnomer [as regarding the Hague]; there are “lawful combatants” {uniformed soldiers} and “unlawful combatants” {what we’ve been calling ‘enemy combatants’}.
IE the ‘enemy combatants’ term, as used today, is an example of [our] government “playing the [word] game” with ‘legalese.’
I am with you bro.
Just limit it to who ever the President identifies as an islamic terrorist. Then is OK to kill them by executive fiat.
...and Joos. Them too - can't trust 'em.
...and wet backs. Them too - "Press One for english my a$$...
...and queers. Them too - damned perverts.
...and Irishmen. Them too - never liked any of 'em anyway.
Who else is on your list; and who's list are YOU on?
Not so simple is it?
Your resident Tyrant is no different from any other tyrant that has ever been and his end will necessarily have to be the same. CO
>Your resident Tyrant is no different from any other tyrant that has ever been and his end will necessarily have to be the same
As was written some time ago:
“The history [...] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.”
I’ll see your 12,300 and raise you another 150 million whits on November 2nd!
scary!!!!
Maybe not but someone operating against American interests overseas and engaging in terrorism should be capped with extreme prejudice. Otherwise we are back to the premise that enemy combatants should be brought to trial.
Adam Gadahn should be waterboarded and killed
Thank you for doing my research for me, It pretty much proved my point.
I’m not usually snarky. I was just returning a snarky volley.
Your link also had the list of “in absentia” trials Laz posted to prove his point. considering the section that preceded the list, he was being more than a little misleading.
That order came straight from the bj in office at the time...as well as blatantly ignoring the Posse Comitatus Act. Janet Reno couldn’t do Waco on her own.
What happened to bj for that? NOTHING.
Precedence was set. Remember that they THOUGHT Gore would win the presidency. What do you suspect might have happened if he had?
Waco and Ruby Ridge set precedent. Bush kept his hands clean and just paved the road, but Bush isn’t president anymore...and abu has been systematically following clinton precedent since he first got the nomination.
It’s as if the intervening years of Bush never existed. He started right where bj left off.
Explain yourself, because you utterly suck in every way.
So Obama is against water on the head but approves assassination of US citizens?
You know what’s REALLY scary? How many people on this thread have to mentally edit their remarks for fear the wrong people might be watching?
And you know they are....
Kennedy. Thieu, leader of our ally, South Vietnam, 1 November 1963. How did that work out?
“Can’t trust Salon.”
That was my first thought. As juicy as this article is I shall wait to fully indulge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_absentia#In_absentia_under_United_States_law
In post 124 you pasted a list of “in absentia” trials. The list obviously came from Wikipedia list of examples.
The section just above the examples goes through a long explanation of why “in absentia” trials have not been accepted in the US for over 100 years.
Don’t be mean.
We attacked an al Qaeda camp in Yemen with cruise missiles in December. This was undoubtedly approved by Obama.
So do you believe that Obama should be able to make up the rules of law as he goes along or ignore our constitution? I guess yoou don’t see a problem with his hypocrisy and lies. You obviously trust the man, I don’t. He is the one that ran on a campaign to ‘end the wars’ and give foreign terrorists ‘rights’ and ‘trails’. Suddenly there is an American citizen involved in ‘instigating’ Islamic radical jihad and Obama just ‘deems’ the man to death without affording him the same ‘rights’ he gives to foreign terrorists? The CIA doesn’t have to read him his rights..yet Obama puts our military men and women in impossible situations on the battle field with ridiculous ROE and the reading of miranda rights in the middle of a war?
PS. Awlaki is only a citizen by Unconstitutional Supreme Court fiat. The SOB was was born here to non-citizens.
The US is not at war with FreRepublic and we are Americans on American soil. WE are not levying war agains the United States.
There is a great Twilight Zone episode called The Obsolete Man, with Burgess Meridith and Fritz Weaver, about how the State has sole power to declare someone obsolete and worthy of “liquidation”
Interesting...you can’t imprison them, but you can kill them without trial!?
Funny....I just brought up his name last night when describing a fellow I know, who just got hired by the Feds.
Due to complacency, the government should run roughshod over the citizens.
We don't deserve any better.
It's why I changed my tagline.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.