Below is today’s column in USA Today (to run in paper form on Wednesday) on President Barack Obama’s claim to the right to kill citizens as dangers to the nation. Ironically, the day after I wrote the Los Angeles Times column on Obama’s disastrous impact on the civil liberties movement in the United States (including his assertion of the right to kill citizens on his own authority), the U.S. killed two citizens in Yemen. Notably, Ron Paul (who has emerged as the only candidate discussing these issues from a civil libertarian perspective) suggested an impeachment inquiry based on the killing of the two citizens. Below is the column in USA Today.
Last week, Americans saw a curious sight for a free nation: their president ordered the killing of two U.S. citizens without a trial or even a formal charge and the public applauded. President Obama never denied that he told the military to kill Anwar al-Awlaki on his sole discretion a year ago. They did so last week in Yemen – and killed U.S.-born cleric Samir Khan for good measure. Two U.S. citizens killed because a president unilaterally declared them to be part of a terrorist organization.
Before the killing, Obama successfully fought efforts by al-Awlaki’s family to have a court review the legality for the planned assassination of their kin. Due to reported prior associations of the U.S. government with al-Awlaki, it was a hearing that the intelligence agencies likely did not want to occur. At the time, the Justice Department argued that if al-Awlaki wanted judicial review, he should file with the clerk’s office himself – despite an order for him to be shot on sight. The Obama administration succeeded in arguing that the planned killing of a citizen on this hit list was a “political question,” not a legal question.
While few people mourn the passing of a figure like al-Awlaki who was accused being a leader in al Qaeda, they should mourn the passing of basic constitutional protections afforded to all citizens. So a president can now kill a citizen without publicly naming him as a target, stating the basis for his killing, or even acknowledge his killing once it has been carried out. Even if one assumes citizens would only be killed outside the country, it would mean that a your life becomes dispensable the minute you step a foot over one of our borders.
At the same time, the government has expanded the definition of terrorism and material support for terrorism, which in turn further expands the scope of possible targets. When confronted on the lack of knowledge of who is on this list and the basis for their killing, the Obama administration simply says that citizens must trust their president. It is the very definition of authoritarian power – and Americans appear to have developed a taste for it.
Obama’s hit list is a continuation of a policy defended by George W. Bush, who ordered an attack that killed U.S. citizen, Kamal Derwish, in Yemen in 2002. While Bush wanted Yemeni Abu Ali al-Harithi (the alleged mastermind behind the 2000 bombing of the U.S. Cole) dead, Derwish was riding in the car with him (as well as four other individuals). Derwish was not even on a hit list, but U.S. intelligence officials said it did not matter because they were authorized to kill Americans in such operations.
The sight of free people applauding the president’s discretionary killing of citizens would have horrified the framers of our Constitution. In conflict with a system based on checks and balances, Obama controls not just who will die but whether a court can review his decisions. Even if the family of these men were to try to sue for wrongful death, the Obama administration insists that they have the discretion to block such cases under the “military and state secrets privilege.” Thus, even if a president arbitrarily were to order the killing of a citizen, neither the victim nor his family could challenge the matter before an independent court (assuming they even knew about the order).
Notably, in the face of this extrajudicial killing of two citizens, Democrats who claim to be civil libertarians like Dianne Feinstein have cheered the president – creating a record for the next president to expand on these acquiesced powers.
No republic can long stand if a president retains the unilateral authority to kill citizens who he deems a danger to the country. What is left is a magnificent edifice of laws and values that, to quote Shakespeare’s Macbeth, is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
Great links CEJ.
I was going to express my extreme displeasure with Kucinich over his admiration of Ron Paul, but I think Blouise summed it up succinctly so I’ll simply say, “Echo, Blouise.”
I really don’t understand how anyone can admire Ron Paul; to me, he and his son are truly loathsome.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/extreme-ron-paul-president-2012
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/mailblog-why-i-cant-vote-for-ron-paul-20110502
Blouise,
I agree with you.
Impeach my ass! Obama is just what the GOP ordered. He is a hawk if there ever was one. O got everybody fooled. He comes across as this mild and meek president who takes mad shit off of the Rethugs, but behind the scenes he is lean, mean killing machine. Rule of law aside, you gotta hand it to him though. The man’s got more mettle than he puts on. And we thought GW was a cowboy.
raf,
That video was my Obama moment. I have always been a big supporter of Kucinich so you can imagine my extreme disappoint to find him to be a genuine Ron Paul admirer. I never expected much from Obama so his actions have never fallen short of my low expectations. But Kucinich’s admiration for Paul runs counter to so much of what I believe is important. Ron Paul’s racist newsletter articles were written over a five-year period, from 1989 to 1994, and long ago I satisfied myself that his comments in those articles were not taken out of context. It is disappointing beyond belief that Kucinich could admire such a man. (I haven’t even mentioned Paul’s books on abortion nor his comments regarding women’s issues.)
Mildred Gillars, American-born, worked for Radio Berlin during the war as an actress and announcer, broadcasting a show called “Home Sweet Home” aimed at American soldiers. Her May 11, 1944, broadcast against D-Day earned her a conviction for treason in the US after the defeat of Germany.
How about Coco Channel…..Could she have been? Possibly…but for her paramour that had some degree of Nobility….
Elizabeth Arden? Maybe she was…..but well connected…
Hmm….
What Gillars got was what is called the Fundamental right to Due Process….a foreign concept in America today…
In fairness, Herman Cain has also stated that the assassination order was not legal:
Paul and Kucinich both have been highly principled in their positions throughout their careers. I respect them both and I see both as individuals who elevate ideals above partisanship. It’s quite a rare attribute on the national political stage.
At the end of the day I think Paul is wrong on several issues, the foremost among being Paul’s position that abortion could be regulated by the states. No government should have the power to enslave a woman in this manner. Government should have no authority over your person, be it to coerce a vaccination, carry a pregnancy to term, or prevent you from using drugs to end your life with dignity. To me Paul’s outspoken anti-war positions and bold statements about government tyranny outweigh this abortion stance.
JT is exactly right. Paul’s voice is the sole voice advancing a civil libertarian perspective in the Presidential race. I support Paul raising the question of impeachment, just as I supported the impeachment of Bush.
I’m sure more impeachable offenses are in our future.
Brian,
May I introduce you to “Tokyo Rose”….
Just think you should consider this option….You think American officials don’t lie to get what they want?
Here is food for thought…..Due Process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iva_Toguri_D'Aquino
I wasn’t aware that American traitors got a pass from getting killed during a war.
Earl,
I guess you missed the Republican debate where RP said society should let a person die because he chose not to have insurance when he was healthy. The truth hurts sometime.
There is the hippocratic oath and then the hypocrites oath which seems to be the one politicians seem to take, even when they start out with noble intentions.
Earl, your admiration of Paul is noted but even if he were to become president he is, as president, primarily a figurehead. Congress does the law making and the president has not a whole lot of say in the matter. Look at this congress. Since president Obama was elected it has had only one goal: obstruction of anything he proposes. Do you truly believe the congress would act in a manner any different if it was President Paul?
There are two Ron Pauls, apparently. There is Dr. Paul who would have done everything in his power to save a patient. Then there is the Rep. Paul who supports polices that are, literally, killing sick people.
I prefer the former and wish he would place the Hippocratic Oath he took when he graduated medical school above the pledges to the likes of Grover Norquist and the teabaggers.
Rafflaw
I fail to see your rationale in making such a narrow minded statement as Ron Paul advocating to let people who are not insured die? Ron Paul has never advocated such a thing, and I would challenge you to back-up such a childish defamatory remark with actual proof that he has ever advocated such a thing.
How is it that you fail to grasp the simple fact that if anyone would bear the blame for letting someone die, it would be the profiteering policies of Hospitals, Doctors, and Insurance companies that would make such a call, not Ron Paul?
Where is your disdain for them, you somehow have managed to give the true despotic villain’s that would and actually do perpetrate these acts a free pass, Why? Perhaps it is politically motivated? It most certainly is not logically motivated.
It has long been common knowledge, that people will see first in others those things most prevalent in themselves.
Could it be that your failure to see the honesty and integrity in Ron Paul is a result of you lacking those very qualities with-in yourself?
Ron Paul has clearly stated that he practiced medicine well before any federal programs or law mandating emergency treatment by way of ETMALA, which is still in place http://www.emtala.com/ but Obama seeks to abolish under Obama Care, as well as long term care which no longer exists today thanks to Hospital and Insurance companies who set max limits of coverage.
Yes Rafflaw, even those with insurance that contract long term illnesses are being turned out to die, because they have exceeded their life’s value limit.
Ron Paul is calling for the dismantling of the profiteering at taxpayers expense, of a system that allows such atrocities to happen, he most surely is not supporting such a despotic system as you appear to support.
If you remove the absurdity of unlimited government funding from our health care industry, all of the parasitic profiteers will flee like ticks from a dead dog.
When Ron Paul first practiced medicine, hospitals and treatment for such individuals was primarily funded by the charity funded hospitals and clinics. No one went untreated, nor were any left to die like they are today in a medical system hijacked by callus profiteers. A system allowed to exist due to self-servient politicians, placed in power by their Adel minded ill-informed supporters.
The American people are still renowned for their compassion and generosity throughout the world, it is time that we stop allowing our own to die, just because corporate greed is allowed to dictate the value of our own people’s lives,all thanks to our corrupt political system.
There is no candidate who has stood firm for his principles as Ron Paul has done for better than three decades. A politician who has refused to take pay raises, or take advantage of tax laws that he deemed to be unjust.
There is no other that would assure the American people that he would not extend the Patriot Act, and would veto any law that violated our Constitution without following its stated process, No other that will end the empire building and war mongering our nation has been allowed to inflict upon the world. There is no candidate other than Ron Paul that will with the support of the people, begin to dismantle the bureaucratic monstrosity of corporatism that manipulates our very government to work against the will of the people.
Ron Paul has far more going for him, than all the other establishment backed jokes combined.
Blouise,
Kucinich is living in a dream world if he thinks it is a good idea to have a Teapublican who doesn’t agree with him on many social issues.
David1, October 4, 2011 at 3:55 pm
You’ve touched on the most important lesson of this terrifying new policy, the public’s lack of concern about how Al-Awlaki’s loss of the most basic rights equates to a similar loss of their own rights.
—————————————————-
I don’t think the public lacks concern in the least.
What we lack is reliable information.
We have our power vested in those whose statements are contrary to what thier behavior (of late) exhibits.
There is a contract being broken.
It is not being broken by the ‘public’.
The outcry is visible everywhere but the media.
Where is the coverage of the protests?
Mr. Turley, that mayt be an excellent column.
raf and SwM,
Gotta tel you that Kucinich clip surprised the hell out of me. I’m backing away from Kucinich because his enthusiasm for Ron Paul is a definite turn off. I even considered not posting the video but in the end … honesty is the best policy and I figured you all should be aware.
As SwM said, neither one of them are going anywhere.
Swarthmore,
You are right. That is one of the reasons I don’t agree with Prof. Turley about Ron Paul. He has a racist past and I don’t believe that he truly believes in creationism. As a doctor, he should know better.