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
I hear the sound of little rats digging, digging, digging to see if any president before Bush II was known to have done such a targeting.
First they came for Awlaki, but I am not a terrorist so I did not care, then they came for ...
What happened to miranda rights for terrorists?
What does Anwar al-Awlaki have on Ogabe.......
Perhaps it need be only a person who is unruly and SCREAMS out the TRUTH to that pom-pus POS at one of his creepy air force one boondoggles. A person quietly killed in his or her bedroom later that day. Legally. Of course.
Welcome to tyranny ala liberal land. You will NEVER hear any liberals come against uhbama. They are not only afraid of him, but they are TERRIFIED of being called racist! lol
I'm wondering if he would authorize the assassination of a Kenyan?
He has already bankrupted the nation... we just haven’t seen the generations of debt servitude in the future. Future generations indentured.
He has already bankrupted the nation... we just haven’t seen the generations of debt servitude in the future. Future generations indentured.
The DU appears to be spinning it this way now.
What is unprecedented about this is that they announced it to the world. And that by announcing it to the world is better than a covert ops murder as it’s a shrewd move to make the guy inneffective.
But then there are those that support Obama and some wish to have GW and Bush added to the hit list.
While some think this is a bad idea.
It’s a mixed bag...get some popcorn this should be fun.
This is a STUNNING article from Salon....pass it on via Facebook etc.
Wow.
Shocked beyond words. Bush never did this and Obama outright said he wouldn’t even detain Americans without charges.
Now he says he has the right to just kill them at will?
It is fun seeing the liberals forced at last to deal seriously with the issues that we conservatives have been working on for almost ten years. Welcome to the grownup table, guys. If you don't like the food, we'll send you back to the kids' table in November.
President huh authorized the what to kill who?
Only other example that I can think of is the lib's all-time favorite prez...President Bartlett wrestling with this issue from his post on the West Wing.
I rarely go to DU but went there the other day to see the reaction on the new Nuclear response policy and even some of those people had second thoughts. But I only stayed for a short time and there were not that many posts on the subject yet.
Great concept, until you realise that Obama decides, on October 4, 2010, that a fellow by the name of OldNavyVet on Free Republic is an enemy of the state, and must be killed.
OOPS, that didn't work out too well for ya, did it?
Really good question.
I am all for killing on the battlefield, but random assassination just anywhere....no.
Even someone as pro-war on terrorism as me says no to that.
That’s not acceptable. Now, if the person is actively involved on a plot on U.S. soil, say about ready to blow up a bomb right in front of you, yeah, kill.
But otherwise....this gives the government way too much power.
But thanks for playin'.
Plots to participate in Tea Party rallies.
Plots to oppose/repeal Obamacare.
Plots to post anti-Obama comments on-line.
Plots to purchase firearms and ammunition.
Good point. Obama needs to get the courts spun up and start trying all these terrorists in absentia so he can say they are guilty before he kills them.
That should make for some interesting antics. Trying an empty chair for terrorism.
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.