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 anon nurse!
SB… “Kill one and how many more are radicalized…” (or become radicalized…) Take your pick…
Woosty,
I don’t disagree I think that greed is one of the root causes that fuels blood lust… and ramps up the fear level, as well…
Regarding, “what was ‘saved’ by silencing this man in this fashion?”
What was “saved” in my opinion, was the insane “war on terror.” Kill one and how many more are become radicalized?
anon nurse1, October 5, 2011 at 2:06 pm
——————————————————
I hink the culprit is greed, not blood lust. People are righteously indignant. And fear, tha is also a red flag, is growing because people are not just sitting back and ‘taking’ the lawlessness. It has gone too far and for the wrong reasons.
• In April 2010, President Barack Obama makes al-Awlaki the first American placed on the CIA target list.
• In May 2011, as Yemen is gripped by an uprising against President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s regime, a U.S. drone targets al-Awlaki but again the mission fails.
———————————-
so, loss of citizenship….with due process prior to… is there some reason this wasn’t considered????
what was ‘saved’ by silencing this man in this fashion?
I am not a fan of the ‘gangsta’ approach….
Jill 1, October 5, 2011 at 12:51 pm
“There does seem to be a blood lust in this culture. It needs to be confronted and we need to rid it from our hearts and minds. Blood lust makes people so easy to manipulate. It is the basis of all totalitarian systems because it is essential to an authoritarian mindset and actions.”
I’m seeing in on a daily basis… it’s rough on the streets of America these days… I never imagined that I would see this kind of evil — modern-day witchhunts… that are cruel and sadistic…
Anon, I hate to sound like an old fogey but I have felt that a big part of this is from playing the video games and seeing so much bloodlust on Tv as well as the ads with people walking across the screen, often humorously; an ad for Psych for instance, as you are watching something somber. The minute you start to feel the emotion it is interrupted by these ads, people, esp teens and younger have learned, are learning, that violence is only a game (but then go all the way back to Kitty Genovese in NYC, no one bothered then). It has no repercussions, emotions are fleeting so if someone is hurt or they see violence that flash of empathy and compassion is gone in a second and no more worries.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/30/1021576/-Ties-between-Occupy-Wall-Street-and-unions-are-growing Unions for the most part don’t care for Ron Paul.
A timeline…”the most prominent dates in the life of al-Awlaki”:
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/09/ap-look-at-life-al-qaida-cleric-al-awlaki-093011/
A look at the life of al-Qaida cleric al-Awlaki
The Associated Press
Posted : Friday Sep 30, 2011 9:06:56 EDT
The Yemeni government said U.S.-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in an airstrike Friday in the eastern province of al-Jawf.
Here are the most prominent dates in the life of al-Awlaki:
• April 22, 1971, born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents.
• In 1978, family returns to Yemen where father serves as agriculture minister, professor at Sanaa University.
• In 1991, al-Awlaki returns to U.S. to study civil engineering at Colorado State University, then education studies at San Diego State University and later does doctoral work at George Washington University in Washington.
• In 2000, al-Awlaki starts preaching in San Diego mosque where he met two of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.
• Al-Awlaki becomes preacher at Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia, outside Washington.
• After Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, al-Awlaki was interviewed at least four times in two weeks about his dealings with three of the hijackers aboard the flight that slammed into the Pentagon. The Sept. 11 Commission report said al-Awlaki was also investigated by the FBI in 1999 and 2000. None of the investigations led to criminal charges against him.
• Returns to Sanaa in 2004.
• In 2006, Yemeni authorities arrest al-Awlaki with a group of five Yemenis suspected of kidnapping a Shiite Muslim teenager for ransom. He is released without trial after a year in prison following the intercession of his tribe.
• In 2007, after release from prison, al-Awlaki moves to the Awalik tribal heartland in eastern province of Shabwa, an al-Qaida stronghold, living in his family home in the mountain hamlet of Saeed and occasionally preaching in a local mosque.
• Exchanged up to 20 emails with U.S. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, alleged killer of 13 people in the Nov. 5, 2009, rampage at Fort Hood.
• On Dec. 24, 2009, al-Awlaki was believed to be at a gathering of al-Qaida figures in Yemen’s Shabwa mountains, a day before the Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up the airliner near Detroit. Yemeni warplanes, using U.S. intelligence help, struck the tents but al-Awlaki and others were believed to have driven off hours earlier.
• In New York, the Pakistani-American man who pleaded guilty to the May 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt said he was “inspired” by al-Awlaki after making contact over the Internet.
• Al-Awlaki is believed to have had a hand in mail bombs addressed to Chicago-area synagogues, packages intercepted in Dubai and Europe in October 2010.
• In March 2010, an al-Awlaki tape was released in which he urged American Muslims to mount attacks in the U.S.
• In April 2010, President Barack Obama makes al-Awlaki the first American placed on the CIA target list.
• In May 2011, as Yemen is gripped by an uprising against President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s regime, a U.S. drone targets al-Awlaki but again the mission fails.
Tuesday, Oct 4, 2011
Andrew Ross Sorkin’s assignment editor
By Glenn Greenwald
http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/04/andrew_ross_sorkins_assignment_editor/singleton/
Excerpt:
The Occupy Wall Street protest has been growing in numbers, respectability, and media attention for several weeks now. Despite that, The New York Times‘ financial columnist who specializes in Wall Street coverage, Andrew Ross Sorkin, has neither visited the protests nor written about them — until today. In a column invoking the now-familiar journalistic tone of a zoologist examining a bizarre new species of animal discovered in the wild, Sorkin explains what prompted him to finally pay attention (via Michael Whitney):
I had gone down to Zuccotti Park to see the activist movement firsthand after getting a call from the chief executive of a major bank last week, before nearly 700 people were arrested over the weekend during a demonstration on the Brooklyn Bridge.
“Is this Occupy Wall Street thing a big deal?” the C.E.O. asked me. I didn’t have an answer. “We’re trying to figure out how much we should be worried about all of this,” he continued, clearly concerned. “Is this going to turn into a personal safety problem?”
How interesting that when a CEO “of a major bank” wants to know how threatening these protests are, he doesn’t seek out corporate advisers or dispatch the bank’s investigators, but instead gets the NYT‘s notoriously banker-friendly Wall Street reporter on the phone and assigns him to report back. How equally interesting that if this NYT financial columnist can’t address the concerns and questions of a CEO “of a major bank,” he hops to it to find out what was demanded of him. Sorkin did what he was told, cautiously concluding:
As I wandered around the park, it was clear to me that most bankers probably don’t have to worry about being in imminent personal danger. This didn’t seem like a brutal group — at least not yet.
As I noted last week when critiquing the patronizing, dismissive and scornful attacks on these protests from establishment circles, the “message” is clear and obvious enough, and Sorkin had no trouble discerning a significant part of it: “the demonstrators are seeking accountability for Wall Street and corporate America for the financial crisis and the growing economic inequality gap.” He added: “that message is a warning shot about the kind of civil unrest that may emerge — as we’ve seen in some European countries — if our economy continues to struggle.” His CEO banking friend is right to be concerned: if not about this protest in particular then about the likelihood of social unrest generally, emerging as a result of their plundering and pilfering. That healthy fear on the part of the oligarchs has been all too absent. (…and the article continues)
I’ll repeat that last line:
“That healthy fear on the part of the oligarchs has been all too absent. “
David1, October 5, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Thanks Jill. I agree with you about partisanship needing to end as the Democrats’ ability to justify Obama’s behavior shortly after condemning Cheney’s demonstrates simply that both parties tend to believe their ‘King is law’ rather than that “In America, the law is king,” to paraphrase Paine’s Common Sense.
—————————————
more bullcrap.
more “Iknow you are but what am I????”
Dick Cheney was not President.
David,
I have a lot of hope concerning occupy wallstreet. They know that Obama and other Democrats are trying to co-opt the movement for their own benefit. Knowing this will, I hope, help keep it from happening.
I am very frightened for our people. There is use of extremely sophisticated propaganda/manipulation going on. It is difficult to find actual information. Jeremy Scahill studied Blackwater for a long time and said at the end of writing his book that that he thought he probably knew about 3% of what was going on. Lakoff seems particularly odious to me. He argues that people should speak with the intent of manipulating others. I believe we have had quite enough of that! The signs held by many protesters at occupy wallstreet are just the opposite– they speak from the reality of people’s lives. In fact, I would say a good way to spot the political minions is to look for manipulative slogans, those will be very different from people speaking out of their lived experience.
Yes, the Democrats use many scare tactics about the right to help them get elected. More importantly, worrying about Republicans keeps Democrats from worrying about Democrats! When your party’s president is committing war crimes it’s important that the base be distracted and never confront what their own guy is doing.
In the movie, “Why we Fight” one person talked about how war loving Americans are. He said we didn’t like to admit this to ourselves, but if you looked at the evidence, you can’t really conclude otherwise. There does seem to be a blood lust in this culture. It needs to be confronted and we need to rid it from our hearts and minds. Blood lust makes people so easy to manipulate. It is the basis of all totalitarian systems because it is essential to an authoritarian mindset and actions.
I hope dearly that the protests stay non-authoritarian and true to social justice.
“The main problem is that the public seems unable to shed the Bush and Obama administration’s similar framing which states: “trust us, we have evidence, but these Terrorists are so scary that we can’t even reveal it in court.”” -David
And the approach is quite similar here in the U..S. — many just don’t realize it yet.
http://daily.swarthmore.edu/2011/10/03/swat-alums-face-police-brutality-during-occupy-wall-street-2/ I get my information about the protests from the protesters not from the blog or the media.
Thanks Jill. I agree with you about partisanship needing to end as the Democrats’ ability to justify Obama’s behavior shortly after condemning Cheney’s demonstrates simply that both parties tend to believe their ‘King is law’ rather than that “In America, the law is king,” to paraphrase Paine’s Common Sense. Underneath this belief, however, lies a false framing which tells a story of “our party vs. theirs” when such a belief only serves to uphold the status quo whose two arms (and parties) lead to the same corporate heart. I recently relistened to George Lakoff’s “The Political Mind,” which is a partisan look at the Bush Administration’s use of neuroscience and a call to the left to embrace similar techniques. However, listening to it now, it is clear that each criticism he makes against the Cheney Administration (I say this knowing that the Secret Services’ nicknames for Bush and Cheney were “Charlie” and “Edgar”!) applies to Obama’s administration. In short, “meet the new boss, [pretty much the] same as the old boss.” The main problem is that the public seems unable to shed the Bush and Obama administration’s similar framing which states: “trust us, we have evidence, but these Terrorists are so scary that we can’t even reveal it in court.” Occupy Wall Street seems like a positive indication that a significant segment rejects this as well as the cries for sacrifice on the part of all those except the ones we bailed out already, but it remains to be seen whether this movement will be coopted by the establishment or turn into a force for real change. I hope it brings real change and think it’s made up of a lot of the same people who were energized by Obama’s campaign but shocked by his audacity of quickly embracing Cheney’s policies and abandoning his promises. His main tactic now seems to be pointing out how scary a Republican nominee might be, and calling himself an underdog, but most people have now realized that, when judging Obama, you must believe your eyes over your ears. I fear that he’ll lose and those partisan Democrats who overlooked how dangerous these imperial presidential policies might be will end up witnessing them wielded by someone from the party that nominated prompted even Romney to publicly call for “Sheriff Joe’s” assistance on immigration. Now that’s really scary, right?
Jill1, October 5, 2011 at 11:17 am
S.M.,
What’s interesting about the occupy wallstreet protestors is their lack of partisanship. They realize that the social injustice which is in force in the US came about through the work of Democrats and Republicans alike. This is not a movement for the election of Romney, Obama or anyone else. It is a movement for social justice on behalf of the people of the US by the people of the US.
————————————————–
That’s right!
People should remember that while politicians live on the furthest spectrum of the poles….that which is often black or white…..98% of the world lives between those 2 poles….and they have been sorely abused of late!
Wootsy,
You wrote a post to me at 11:46 a.m. I am having some trouble understanding what you are saying to me. If you can, would you please rephrase it? Thank you.
Jeff H.1, October 5, 2011 at 7:21 am
Mr. Turley. I think that you are very short sighted in your assessment on American turncoats. These people do there best to kill not only our soldiers but attempt to out do the cowardly 9/11 sneak attack on New York. If erasing these turncoats is the way to help protect our soldiers and our country then more power to the American Spirit.
———————————————-
What the ‘American’ spirit is about resides in the light of day as well as the hearts of the American people.
It is not a puppet on strings. One of its very foundational ideals is respect for the very people that our Constitution was written to protect.
That’s why so many people in the world STILL WANT TO BECOME AMERICANS! It has to do with somthing you probably can’t see. They are fleeing governments who have little regard for themand thier property and thier lives. And they recognize who and what is trying to take that same hold here.
America is still here. We are all still here. It’s just another attempt by rats to ruin the grain. They failed. Even without the media. Even without the protection of those they had a right to expect it from. So go home and try to behave.
Jill1, October 5, 2011 at 10:41 am ~ …………..Mr. al-Awalki should have been charged with a specific crime if there was sufficient evidence to legally charge him with that crime. The charge should have been clearly laid out in public. [ yup]
He should then have been arrested. Arrest is not impossible. Dangerous conditions for arrest exist every day. Law enforcement officers have taken an oath to uphold our Constitution, therefore they take the risk, even of their own death to follow that oath. We owe them a debt of gratitude for abiding by their oath. Further, the FBI had al-Awalki arrested by authorities in Yemen in 2006. (They also had him tortured, with their full knowledge, at that time.) We see then that even Mr. al-Awalki could be arrested.
………….
——————————————————————————
We are living in a time of serious corruption. What is not tenable, or even wise, is to follow the letter of the law and leave behind the purpose for that law. That is the doorway that opens to the corrupt so they can move things to thier own purpose.
A ‘debt’ of ‘gratitude’ is a fart in the wind.
Why would you expect people to put themselves in harms way to protect those whose ‘interests’ run solely to the economic and without any regard at all for thier safety or God-given rights and purpose(or natural and innate rights and purpose if you are atheist…).
Why would you so automatically dismiss the actions, difficulties and usary of those that
you admit abide by thier oaths….while so many in office and high hallowed halls so easily break thiers with impunity, with ease, and mostly…without even RECOGNITION of them. [or healthcare, or economic viability, or fill in the blank if you have brain cells…..]. It must be so nice to be able to play on a field with those who don’t cheat….it must be so……………easy……………
S.M.,
This protest is much deeper than which Wall Street/MIC complex lackey gets elected for office. Clearly, electing Democrats and Republicans has been a failing strategy for most people in our nation. We have war and financial criminals running the show. The point of the protest and I believe, of JT’s column is that it will take the people of the US to make things right again. We must stop supporting war and financial criminals of any party and work to restore the rule of law and social justice.
Jill, That is right. It is not partisan, but Romney’s remarks could change that in the future. He may have made a mistake.