Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Executioner in Chief: How a Nobel Peace Prize Winner Became Head - Worldwide Assassination Program
The Rutherford Institute ^ | 2/8/13 | John W Whitehead

Posted on 02/08/2013 3:19:33 PM PST by illiac

“Much of our foreign policy now depends on the hope of benevolent dictators and philosopher kings. The law can’t help. The law is what the kings say it is.”—Ta-Nehisi Coates, writing for The Atlantic

“If George Bush had done this, it would have been stopped.”—Joe Scarborough, former Republican congressman and current MSNBC pundit

When Barack Obama ascended to the presidency in 2008, there was a sense, at least among those who voted for him, that the country might change for the better. Those who watched in awe as President Bush chipped away at our civil liberties over the course of his two terms as president thought that maybe this young, charismatic Senator from Illinois would reverse course and put an end to some of the Bush administration’s worst transgressions—the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, the torture, the black site prisons, and the never-ending wars that have drained our resources, to name just a few.

A few short years later, that fantasy has proven to be just that: a fantasy. Indeed, Barack Obama has not only carried on the Bush legacy, but has taken it to its logical conclusion. As president, Obama has gone beyond Guantanamo Bay, gone beyond spying on Americans’ emails and phone calls, and gone beyond bombing countries without Congressional authorization. He now claims, as revealed in a leaked Department of Justice memo, the right to murder any American citizen the world over, so long as he has a feeling that they might, at some point in the future, pose a threat to the United States.

Let that sink in. The President of the United States of America believes he has the absolute right to kill you based upon secret “evidence” that you might be a terrorist.

(Excerpt) Read more at rutherford.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: crime; government; obama
Long, but worth the read....
1 posted on 02/08/2013 3:19:43 PM PST by illiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: illiac

Please read your US passport, page 7 article 13 entitled, “Loss of Citizenship”.

These al-qaeda goons, despite having been born on American soil, are NOT Americans, neither do they want to be.

I’m no 0bama fan, but going after these anti-American killers is a good thing.


2 posted on 02/08/2013 3:29:17 PM PST by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: illiac
And, hypocritically enough, he achieved this over the roaring silence of his "pacifist" supporters, those same people who were so dramatically (and publicly) appalled at the "abuses" of human rights under the Bush administration.

If this doesn't prove once and for all the utter moral paucity of liberalism, then it is clear that reason plays no role in that philosophy, and that every brand of lie, treachery, and betrayal can be justified.

3 posted on 02/08/2013 3:29:24 PM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
Please read your US passport, page 7 article 13 entitled, “Loss of Citizenship”.

I’m no 0bama fan, but going after these anti-American killers is a good thing.

Please read your US Constitution.

In my opinion, no one that is legitimately concerned questions the noble ends that the kenyan marxist CLAIMS to pursue -they question the illegitimate means he employs in their pursuit. His reasons do not matter. Limited government is NOT about electing the right benevolent and all powerful sovereign king BUT about having no king at all!

IF it was all above board and a legitimate historically employed use of executive powers THEN there would be no need for secrecy and no need for legal justification memos.

With the leftist community organizer it is not what is said that matters -it is what is done.

4 posted on 02/08/2013 10:05:37 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DBeers; P-Marlowe
Like it or not, the following constitute for me the president's authorization to kill Awlaki and many others based on the text itself of Public Law 107-40, below:

The Constitution - The president:

Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States

Section 3....
he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,

The Constitution - Congress:

Section 8:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,

Section 9:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

PUBLIC LAW 107-40, 107th Congress, 18 Sep 01 - "Joint Resolution" -
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism

5 posted on 02/08/2013 11:38:00 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Like it or not, I consider both the open ended “Authorization to Use Military Force” joint Resolution and the “Patriot Act” unconstitutional.


6 posted on 02/09/2013 12:33:48 AM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: illiac
In this country, the police will try to apprehend people who are suspected of committing crimes. In some cases, like the recent one in Alabama, apprehension is not possible, and circumstances force the police to kill the suspect. This is done inside the borders of the US, without a trial or presidential authorization, and is generally accepted as being necessary and the right thing to do. I don't see the difference between this and what the government is doing with drones in unfriendly countries where extradition is not possible.

I am not an Obama fan by any means. I take his policies as a tacit admission that George W Bush was right after all, and we should make an extra effort to take the likes of Cindy Sheehan and rub their faces in it.

7 posted on 02/09/2013 5:31:55 AM PST by beef (Who Killed Kennewick Man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: illiac

Totally missing is the kernel of truth on which the actions are based.

In a war you kill the enemies. An Enlightened Obama has permitted the marvelous Drone technology to kill enemy combatants. The fact some of them are American traitors is not really relevant to the main thought.

i.e. in a war, you kill enemies


8 posted on 02/09/2013 5:40:27 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: illiac

Something we never hear about..who is identifying these targets for the drones. Who are our eyes on the ground? CIA? Paid informants? Military special operators? Who is following these guys around?


9 posted on 02/09/2013 5:54:34 AM PST by csmusaret (I will give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBeers; P-Marlowe

The last line I posted from Section 8 of the Congressional power in the Constitution, “to make all laws necessary” makes it possible for Congress to issue a law permitting use of force under “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations” and under “...grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures...”

Every single one of those DO NOT require a declaration of war.

In sum, the Constitution authorizes use of offensive military force, both overt and covert, that is NOT dependent on a declaration of war.

Therefore, the Joint Resolution giving authority to the President against any “organization or person” as “he determines” would have to now be rescinded for the president to be operating those drones illegally against any terrorist he deems connected to that group that brought about 9/11.

I think this is an absolute lock if it were brought to any court. It is far too clear. With his power as CinC and of “executing” the law, he is only doing that which he has already been authorized BY CONGRESS to do.


10 posted on 02/09/2013 5:55:21 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret

The engagement in an asymmetric war involves a host of warriors on the ground and at keyboards watching and watching and watching. Their weapons are data gathering devices.

Asymmetry is associated with heterogeneous, a lack of uniformity. There are many willing to rat on the bad guys that have fled to concentrations of perceived safety.

In Wiziristan and Yemen, the asymmetry is killing the bad guys.


11 posted on 02/09/2013 6:09:46 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

ping to posts #5 and 10


12 posted on 02/09/2013 6:16:33 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bert

You didn’t say anything everyone doesn’t already know. WHO are our eyes on the ground?


13 posted on 02/09/2013 6:25:21 AM PST by csmusaret (I will give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: illiac
What this argument needs are some examples of innocent persons being improperly targeted. I will not wring my hands over the deaths of terrorists who want to kill Americans. Until they are exterminated, I want them to spend every last moment wondering if they are about to be vaporized by an unmanned drone floating quietly above them. I want all others to be terrified of associating with terrorists or being anywhere near them because they fear becoming collateral damage.

Terrorists appreciate terror, don't they?

14 posted on 02/09/2013 6:35:44 AM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret

I can safely say, I don’t know. There is operational secrecy

I can speculate there are special operations forces from a host of nations. I can speculate there are locals tapped for their real knowledge of purely local comings and goings. I can speculate that a cell phone is the transmission source for information passing to who knows where for storage until there is enough to conclusively promote action.

In your thoughts, who are the eyes on the ground?


15 posted on 02/09/2013 6:41:12 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bert

I hope it is the CIA, but no matter who it is we are putting one hell of a lot of power in their hands. I wonder what kind of controls we have it is paid informants?


16 posted on 02/09/2013 6:43:40 AM PST by csmusaret (I will give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret

I have been reading of the early days of the CIA. Many of the operatives on the ground were actually military serving in the OSS performing all sorts of tasks.

I would think the lines between military special ops and cia ops are blurred to those looking from afar.


17 posted on 02/09/2013 7:34:03 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bert

And I hope we are not giving the power of life and death to some Pakistani pick pocket with a grudge.


18 posted on 02/09/2013 7:38:16 AM PST by csmusaret (I will give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: xzins
From the preamble to the Bill of Rights:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

You still do not understand the Constitution as a document limiting the powers of the government, and in particular, the Bill of Rights as the "declaratory and restrictive clauses" that they are as operating on the rest of the Constitution. There was no finding that Al Awlaki had committed said felonies. Therefore, there could be no such LEGAL punishment. Sure, the executive can kill citizens, but only after due process.

You are still out to lunch.

19 posted on 02/09/2013 7:38:26 AM PST by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; P-Marlowe

And you fail to understand that the law says at his discretion the president can attack organizations or persons he deems connected in any way to those that perpetrated 9/11.

The president’s authority is a closed question given that law. So, you could prosecute him til your face turns blue, but he cannot be found guilty of any kind of malfeasance given the wording of that authorization law.

So, your issue right now is with the joint resolution of 2001 and not with me. It does NOT have an end date. You need Congress to put an end date on it.

It’s cut and dried, Carry. Write your congressional reps.


20 posted on 02/09/2013 8:21:03 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: xzins
And you fail to understand that the law says at his discretion the president can attack organizations or persons he deems connected in any way to those that perpetrated 9/11.

Unconstitutionally vague. There is no AQ citizenship. There is no membership list. By that standard of association, the President could kill any Muslim he desires.

The president’s authority is a closed question given that law.

You wish.

21 posted on 02/09/2013 9:28:08 AM PST by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; P-Marlowe

You are correct. According to that law, and the way it is written, the president can kill anyone he deems connected to Al Qaeda or any of its aiding organizations or persons.

And after 9/11 the nation clamored for and applauded this joint congressional action. At the time they were probably right, but they didn’t put an end date on it.

And the assassination of our ambassador and seals in Libya is evidence that the war continues, despite the CinC’s apparent inactivity in saving our people.

I really don’t care if people pretend this wide open authorization isn’t there, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It’s in black and white. It’s in the congressional record. It is public law duly passed by our Congress.

So, as they say, “read ‘em and weep.”


22 posted on 02/09/2013 10:30:34 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: xzins
First: When Congress authorized that statute, the presumption was that AQ consisted of foreigners. There was no perception of a need for a provision regarding American traitors. That assertion is reinforced by history: We didn't go looking for AQ in Duluth (as we should have done), we went to Afghanistan.

Just because one can interpret a law to be tweaked to apply outside its intended context does not mean that the specific action is legal. You know that, which makes your argument dishonest.

Second, what do the words "supreme law of the land" mean to you? Just because Congress passed it does NOT make it "legal." So if ANY question existed in law as to whether that statute applied to an American citizen, the President has exceeded his powers without such a ruling. The Constitution is supreme and the BOR is supreme in restricting the rest of the Constitution.

You've struck out again. Unless there was a finding that Al Awlaki was a member of AQ, EVEN IF THAT RULING IS POST FACTO, his killing was a murder. Murder is a "high crime" by anybody's definition of the term, of which the President is guilty.

23 posted on 02/09/2013 10:48:56 AM PST by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Nope, those are commas between “nations, organizations,or persons” and the word “necessary” as “he determines” is the heart of that law.

Article VI of the Constitition says “This Constitution, AND the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; .... shall be the supreme Law of the Land;”

Notice the word ‘AND’.


24 posted on 02/09/2013 10:58:37 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Notice the word ‘AND’.

If what you are saying was true, there would be no such thing as an unconstitutional law.

Nice fantasy you've got there.

25 posted on 02/09/2013 11:04:17 AM PST by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; P-Marlowe
When Congress authorized that statute, the presumption was that AQ consisted of foreigners

By the way, the above is simply incorrect. The first World Trade Center bombing was in 93, the Saudi AF barracks in 96, the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 98, and the USS Cole in 2000.

Ihab Ali Mohamed is a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Egypt. He has been held in a U.S. jail for several years, accused of lying to a grand jury about his connections to bin Laden. Evidence at trial indicated that Ali had passed messages for Al Qaeda and had trained to be bin Laden's pilot.

The U.S. attorneys described defendant Wadih El Hage as a leader of the Nairobi cell who had to leave Africa after being interviewed by the U.S. FBI in 1997. The other three defendants appear to be lower level cell members who were all trained at Al Qaeda training camps in Pakistan. Wadih El-Hage, 40, is a naturalized American citizen who was born in Lebanon. He has admitted being Osama bin Laden's personal secretary. He was accused of being the key organizer of the Kenya cell and of setting up front companies in Kenya for Al Qaeda. He left Kenya almost a year before the bombings, after being questioned by the FBI in Africa. At the time of the bombings, he was living in Arlington, Texas, with his wife, April, and seven children. El Hage claimed he only worked for bin Laden in legitimate businesses and had no contact with him since 1994. El Hage was charged with conspiracy to murder Americans and could face life in prison. Outcome: Convicted in May 2001. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole on October 18, 2001.

This trial began in January of 2001 and sentencing was in May 2001...obviously prior to Sep 11, 2001

The recently completed trial of four Osama bin Laden associates in U.S. Federal Court in New York City -- the trial began in January 2001 and sentences were handed down in May 2001 -- provides a revealing glimpse into the workings of the Osama bin Laden network, called Al Qaeda or "the base." Four men were tried on charges related to the simultaneous bombings at two American embassies in Africa on August 7, 1998, which killed 224 people and wounded thousands.

Shortly after the embassy bombings, the U.S. government claimed that Osama bin Laden was responsible. They issued a lengthy indictment of bin Laden and many of his associates in the late fall of 1998. According to court documents, the U.S. government had actually been tracking a bin Laden cell operating in Kenya before the bombings and they were able to quickly link these men to the bombings. Several were arrested and brought to the U.S. for trial. Other key operatives escaped and are still at large.

The trial began in U.S. District Court in New York City in January 2001. The evidence presented at the trial paints a detailed picture of the Al Qaeda organization and a history of bin Laden's life and political beliefs


26 posted on 02/09/2013 11:18:51 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

No, it would not mean that there was no such thing as an unconstitutional law, it would mean that it isn’t effectively unconstitutional until the Supreme Court declares it to be so.

Which is, incidentally, why you are going to suffer under ObamaCare, which should have been ruled unconstitutional BUT wasn’t.


27 posted on 02/09/2013 11:22:22 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: xzins
By the way, the above is simply incorrect.

Not as far as the intent of Congress in the drafting and passage of that bill is concerned. In the rush post 9-11 don't think they addressed the question at all.

BTW, it looks to me like Wadih El Hage got due process.

I really don't understand your resistance to taking the information they had on Al Awlaki to a judge for a death warrant or a finding that he is a member of or is specifically aiding AQ. They could have got it done in a few hours. There aren't so many US citizens in AQ that it is any kind of impediment. What I don't want is the President being able to say, "Oh, all those guys in FreeRepublic.com opposed to me are therefore helping AQ." Yes, that's absurd, but there is NOTHING in the law you've cited from preventing it.

Congress has no power to delegate to the President the power to deny due process for any American citizen, nor is it within the spirit of the Constitution to deem the president's whim as to who dies as equivalent to due process. That is why we have divided government and Constitutionally limited powers.

28 posted on 02/09/2013 11:33:32 AM PST by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

That’s because Wadih El Hage was taken into custody in Texas. Had he been organizing another embassy bombing in Africa, and some SpecOps ground team had him in the drone sights, I’d like the go to be immediate and not some hours later after they tracked down a federal judge.

Why?

Because people move out of your sight picture.


29 posted on 02/09/2013 11:40:22 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

Does Obama believe FReepers are enemies?


30 posted on 02/09/2013 11:41:27 AM PST by gitmo ( If your theology doesn't become your biography it's useless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Because people move out of your sight picture.

Please remember this conversation as you fade to black, having been found in the sight picture of someone else.

In the mean time, read this, carefully (I agree with it almost completely). You willingness to accept this policy is a danger to you and everyone around you.

31 posted on 02/09/2013 7:12:31 PM PST by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

What I’ve been saying is that it’s legal (whether we like it or not), and that in some cases I agree with offing those who are a clear and present danger. Collateral damage being what it is, one can always wish that collateral deaths hadn’t occurred when one of the bad guys was taken out.

In any case, Carry, you and I probably aren’t going to change one another’s opinion, but I do think you’ve been more than fair and gracious in this discussion.

Hope you have a great Lord’s Day tomorrow!


32 posted on 02/09/2013 7:20:02 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

I finished the link. Thanks for providing it. It’s a good read.

The author suggests that the 2001 Joint Congressional Authorization is limited by that terrorist act of 9/11. He might like to think so, but the fact is that the authorization had no end date, and the “organization” that perpetrated it STILL exists and others still provide it aid and comfort, AND it is still threatening and killing our citizens.

So, the organization in question still confronts us with present and future threats.

The author is correct that congress could lead on this and put together a real counter-terrorism plan (and provide an end date to the 2001 Authorization.)


33 posted on 02/09/2013 7:35:48 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

One more point...I totally agree with the author that Obama and Holder are grossly hypocritical on this. They were the one’s screaming loud and long over war powers, detaining prisoners, etc.

Their only reason for being in the argument is for the sake of political advantage.


34 posted on 02/09/2013 7:40:14 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: xzins

It matters who is president. The president has a boatload of power well outside of normal law, even inside the United States - much less outside the nation’s borders. That broad empowerment is one of the reasons why the term “misdemeanors” was cited as a basis for impeachment... literally “a bad attitude”.


35 posted on 02/10/2013 3:54:56 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson