Executioner in Chief: How a Nobel Peace Prize Winner Became Head - Worldwide Assassination Program

The Rutherford Institute ^ | 2/8/13 | John W Whitehead

[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.

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[xzins]

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.”

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[xzins]

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’.

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[xzins]

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

[xzins]

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.

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[xzins]

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.

[gitmo]

Does Obama believe FReepers are enemies?

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[xzins]

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!

[xzins]

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.)

[xzins]

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.

[lepton]

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”.