I recently ran a couple of columns (here and here) and postings criticizing President Obama’s assertion of the right to kill citizens as a presidential prerogative. It now appears that he has delegated the selection of targets for killings to a panel of unnamed officials who determine which people should be killed without a trial or even a charge. When it comes to citizens like Anwar al-Awlaki, the killings raise serious constitutional problems that are being kept from the courts by the Administration.
The identity of the members of the death panel are secret. There is no public record of their decisions or the basis for the kill order. Indeed, neither the target nor the public will necessarily know that it was this panel that ordered the killing.
While civil libertarians are raising voices of concern over such extrajudicial killings of citizens, the Obama Administration has portrayed “the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama’s toughness toward militants who threaten the United States.” It has worked. Even conservatives are cheering the killings of the two citizens. Apparently, death panels in health care are enough to rally thousands in opposition but an actual death panel produces nary a yawn if the targets are hated. The fear is that this is how the rule of law dies — to the cheers and thunderous applause of citizens.
The results of the panel are simply submitted to the President, who retains the authority to countermand their decisions.
Obama has the distinction of putting the first citizen on the list. As noted in the earlier postings, Bush killed a citizen who was riding with a target, but Obama outdid his predecessor again in ordering the killing of a citizen.
Source: Reuters
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/pastor-calling-mormonism-a-cult-says-perry-welcomed-his-endorsement.php?ref=fpa I have wondering when Perry was going to use this tactic.
Yep.
Including some current academics.
Such as they are.
Lots and lots of people to put on trial … not just presidents.
“He added, ‘We don’t target people for free speech; we target them for taking action that threatens Americans.’”
“I won’t sting on the way across the river,” said the Scorpion to the Frog.
The best way to prevent the abuse of power? Is not to grant the power in the first place. That especially goes for powers that are prime facie unconstitutional from the onset.
An article from April 8, 2011 … the CIA’s rational:
“Being a US citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans.” He added, “We don’t target people for free speech; we target them for taking action that threatens Americans.” (Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence)
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/8/is_the_cia_assassination_order_of
David,
I for one am all for impeachment and prosecution of Obama so long as that criminal investigation and prosecution includes the Bush Administration and their lackeys as well. Justice requires equity and equity requires equal application (and protection) of the law. We’ve had both a Republican and now a Democratic administration that have violated the Constitution and broken Federal laws. Neither party is protected by the Constitution and the criminal actors in both parties should be held accountable for their actions.
But the GOP doesn’t get to put on a trial for Obama without cleaning out their own house at the same time. We’ve had enough political theater in this country already. If justice is going to be served? She is both blind and even handed.
Speaking as someone who strongly objected to the impeachment of Clinton but advocated it against Bush for things like detaining American Citizens captured in the U.S. for years without charge, or the “Black Site” prison network, or the large-scale violations of the Fourth Amendment (that we still know little about, as like Obama, the Bush Administration successfully invoked State Secrets as a way to avoid judicial review), isn’t it intellectually dishonest to not similarly call for impeachment proceedings against Obama for the use of these “Death Panels?”
In short, if a person advocates for a certain action against members of the other party, isn’t it contradictory to not expect similar calls against the official from your party when he or she implements a similar (if not worse) policy in the future?
Thus, if like me you thought Bush should have been either prosecuted or impeached for the way he prosecuted the ‘war on terror,’ doesn’t this new revelation about Obama demand that you at least admit the same treatment should be applied to Obama?
Isn’t it the time then for Obama to be impeached, if not prosecuted as he seems to have not only emulated the Bush Administration’s tactics, but actually gone beyond what they were willing to do?
Another point is that, whether you agree with me or not about the above, isn’t the lack of coverage or outcry about this policy, in either the press or in the public, even more scary than the revelation about yet another Constitutionally-violative secret Executive Branch itself?
I know some will argue that it’s the press’ fault for not reporting on this more widely, but the Reuters story really should have created a groundswell of shock about the audacity of such a policy and its potential further abuse, right?
It’s as if we unquestionably believe “It Can’t Happen Here.” Maybe I’m wrong (and I’m not exactly out in the streets protesting myself) but, outside of a few blogs, I haven’t heard anyone who’s really concerned about this, as if they think it only involves people they’ve heard are “terrorists” who live in a far away land and thus protects rather than potentially applies to them.
What also scares me are the false narratives circulating, such as “the evidence against these ‘terrorists’ is clear.” The indisputable fact is that we don’t know whether the evidence is clear because the Obama Administration maintains that (1) the evidence is a state secret, and (2) asserts that despite its refusal to reveal this secret to anyone outside the administration, it can order the killing of a U.S. citizen.
The combination of the radical nature of this policy and the lack of concern on the part of most people and most of the press worry me greatly.
I actually hope now that the Occupy Wall Street protests grow in strength and in scope and that they include the impeachment of Obama in their objectives as this policy, no matter what party you belong to which one hold the Presidency, this power is incompatible with a functioning democracy and its existence threatens it greatly.
Dredd,
That is a very profound thing to write!
“I think he was saying if you do not have the appropriate amount of anger when injustice is growing around you, then you will be absorbed by that growing injustice.
In general then, too little anger (to the point of ignoring the growing injustice), or too much anger (to the point of loosing it to violence) is a sign of having been absorbed by injustice.”I think he was saying if you do not have the appropriate amount of anger when injustice is growing around you, then you will be absorbed by that growing injustice.
Thanks to anon nurse for the original link!
anon nurse,
The Moral Imperative of ‘Activism’
October 6, 2011
====================================
Some of the statements and quotes that McGovern makes are so … “proper amount of anger” … shall we say?
I like the discussion he set forth about the Greek activist who realized that his country’s language did not have a word meaning “the appropriate amount of anger” for a given situation. Cool observation. 😉
It perhaps, like psychoanalysis has done here in the USA, had engendered an aversion to proper anger.
So, as a remedy that activist indicated that anyone who inhabits a realm where injustice is all around, but does not become angry (in the proper degree), “sins”.
I think he was saying if you do not have the appropriate amount of anger when injustice is growing around you, then you will be absorbed by that growing injustice.
In general then, too little anger (to the point of ignoring the growing injustice), or too much anger (to the point of loosing it to violence) is a sign of having been absorbed by injustice.
SwM,
Back in April when John Boehner was trying so desperately to use the budget stalemate to defund Planned Parenthood (Title X), Obama said no … then the Senate said no …Obama is no more a part of the War On Women than I am … teabagging bullshit.
Sherrod Brown had over 20,000 Ohioan callers who signed onto his call in townhall meeting on the subject of Planned Parenthood and the War on Women. Perhaps your friend has a Senator that can help along those same lines.
Blouise, Did I ever tell you that one of my best friends is the legislative director of Planned Parenthood in the upper midwest? So far they are supporting Obama. The republicans have made her job a nightmare.
Obama won a lot of women’s votes in 2008. It is imperative to the GOP to cast Obama in the spotlight of “Obama’s War On Women – Obama Care”. Here’s a good example of the right’s efforts:
http://netrightdaily.com/2010/05/obama%E2%80%99s-war-on-women%E2%80%94obamacare-part-i/
Always look behind the curtain … that’s where the chain-yankers hide … on all sides of the political forum
Thank you Blouise….
Now, what is he going to do now that we know this….
Again, thank you…
I read an interesting article the other day entitled “A History of the Endless Referenda on Obama”.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/10/history-endless-referenda-obama/43307/
Perspective, people, perspective ….
The Moral Imperative of ‘Activism’
October 6, 2011
“On Sept. 18, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern gave a talk about “activism” to a conference in Charlottesville, Virginia, focused on the need to confront the military industrial complex. Now, as the occupation of Freedom Plaza in Washington gets underway, his words take on a special resonance.”
by Ray McGovern
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/10/06/the-moral-imperative-of-activism/
(Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army officer and a CIA analyst and now is happy to be described as an “activist.”)
Jill,
There you go again…saying something I mostly agree with….lol…
HenMan,
You better be careful about that bow-tie….it might really be a camera…..And I don’t see how voting for Obama today would make really any difference….If his record is consistent….he’ll make a sell out appointment….but then again he is not that good of a negotiator…he probably would not get anything for it…..
Just like the Jobs bill…used to be the GOP and some Teabaggers were for it…but since…he is for it they are against it….second thought….I think I know how he feels….
Elaine M.,
You get the ability to be an Independent Democrat….I am crushed….I can’t be an Independent Democrat…even in the remotest sense of the word…Don’t you think that is sexist…..lol….
Jill, You might be right, and thank you for your thoughtful post.
S.M.,
Like you, I fully and unconditionally support a woman’s right to abortion. Therefore, I would absolutely not vote for Obama in hopes of securing that right.
Obama has already denied that right to some of the most vulnerable women in our nation, the women in the high risk insurance pool. This denial shows me other important things about Obama –he really doesn’t care about the health and well-being of women. Women’s “rights” are a political tool. If he thinks he can get political mileage by betraying women and helping his donors (in this case insurance companies), he will do it.
If Obama believed in and understood the dire need that our poorest and most vulnerable women had in needing abortions, he could not and would not have denied them coverage.
Therefore we should not rely on a person who sees every decision as a cynical calculation having nothing to do with actual well being and social justice. The moment you trust someone like that to do the right thing, you have made a mistake in evaluation of that person and what he will do.
We further need to consider the larger context we now face. We are a nation without the rule of law. The supreme court has been as much a part of the dismantling of our Constitution and its protections as the Congress and the executive branch. We now have the rule of fiat by the executive. This executive has already demonstrated by his actions that he simply does not care about women’s rights, to abortion. It does not make sense to ignore this fact and have a belief which is contrary to reality.
I agree completely with you that Republican candidates will work very hard to eradicate women’s right to abortion. Therefore, I would not vote for any of them either.
One important way to protect women (and everyone’s) rights is to vote for a third party candidate who has not betrayed women and other people, both here and abroad. I’m also certain that voting, even third party, will not return the US to the rule of law or a state of justice. We the people will need to go to bat for we the people. The govt. is too far gone for even the best willed person to do this alone.