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

Skip to comments.

How many Americans are targeted for assassination? (Salon: should Obama have a license to kill?)
Salon ^ | Friday, Jun 25, 2010 | Glenn Greenwald

Posted on 06/25/2010 9:40:09 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o

When The Washington Post's Dana Priest first revealed (in passing) back in January that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens targeted for assassination, she wrote that "as of several months ago, the CIA list included three U.S. citizens." In April, both the Post and the NYT confirmed that the administration had specifically authorized the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki.

Today, The Washington Times' Eli Lake has an interview with Obama's top Terrorism adviser John Brennan in which Brennan strongly suggests that the number of U.S. citizens targeted for assassination could actually be "dozens":

Dozens of Americans have joined terrorist groups and are posing a threat to the United States and its interests abroad, the president's most senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security said Thursday. . . .

"There are, in my mind, dozens of U.S. persons who are in different parts of the world, and they are very concerning to us," said John O. Brennan, deputy White House national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism. . . .

"If a person is a U.S. citizen, and he is on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq trying to attack our troops, he will face the full brunt of the U.S. military response," Mr. Brennan said. "If an American person or citizen is in a Yemen or in a Pakistan or in Somalia or another place, and they are trying to carry out attacks against U.S. interests, they also will face the full brunt of a U.S. response. And it can take many forms."

Nobody -- or at least not me -- disputes the right of the U.S. or any other country to kill someone on an actual battlefield during war without due process.

That's just obvious, but that's not remotely what Brennan is talking about, and it's not remotely what this assassination program is about. Indeed, Brennan explicitly identified two indistinguishable groups of American citizens who "will face the full brunt of a U.S. response": (1) those "on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq"; and (2) those "in a Yemen or in a Pakistan or in Somalia or another place." In other words, the entire world is a "battlefield" -- countries where there is a war and countries where there isn't -- and the President's "battlefield" powers, which are unlimited, extend everywhere. That theory -- the whole world is a battlefield, even the U.S. -- was the core premise that spawned 8 years of Bush/Cheney radicalism, and it has been adopted in full by the Obama administration (indeed, it was that "whole-world-is-a-battlefield" theory which Elena Kagan explicitly endorsed during her confirmation hearing for Solicitor General).

Anyone who doubts that the Obama administration has adopted the core Terrorism policies of Bush/Cheney should listen to the concession -- or boast -- which Brennan himself made in his interview with Lake:

Mr. Brennan toward the end of the interview acknowledged that, despite some differences, there is considerable continuity between the counterterrorism policies of President Bush and President Obama.

"There has been a lot of continuity of effort here from the previous administration to this one," he said. "There are some important distinctions, but sometimes there is too much made of those distinctions. We are building upon some of the good foundational work that has been done."

I would really like never to hear again the complaint that comparing Bush and Obama's Terrorism and civil liberties policies is unfair, invalid or hyperbolic given that Obama's top Terrorism adviser himself touts that comparison. And that's anything but a surprise, given that Brennan was a Bush-era CIA official who defended many of the most controversial Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies.

I've written at length about the reasons why targeting American citizens for assassination who are far away from a "battlefield" is so odious and tyrannical, and I won't repeat those arguments here. Suffice to say -- and I'm asking this literally -- if you're someone who believes, or are at least willing to acquiesce to the claim, that the U.S. President has the power to target your fellow citizens for assassination without a whiff of due process, what unchecked presidential powers wouldn't you support or acquiesce to? I'd really like to hear an answer to that. That's the question Al Gore asked about George Bush in a 2006 speech condemning Bush's claimed powers merely to eavesdrop on and imprison American citizens without charges, let alone assassinate them: "If the answer is yes, then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? . . . If the president has th[is] inherent authority. . . . then what can't he do?" Can anyone defending this Obama policy answer that question?

One other thing that is truly amazing: the U.S. tried to import this same due-process-free policy to Afghanistan. There, the U.S. last year compiled a "hit list" of 50 Afghan citizens whose assassination it authorized on the alleged ground (never charged or convicted) that they were drug "kingpins" or funding the Talbian. You know what happened? This:

A U.S. military hit list of about 50 suspected drug kingpins is drawing fierce opposition from Afghan officials, who say it could undermine their fragile justice system and trigger a backlash against foreign troops. . . .

Gen. Mohammad Daud Daud, Afghanistan's deputy interior minister for counternarcotics efforts . . . said he worried that foreign troops would now act on their own to kill suspected drug lords, based on secret evidence, instead of handing them over for trial . . . "They should respect our law, our constitution and our legal codes," Daud . "We have a commitment to arrest these people on our own" . . . .

The U.S. military and NATO officials have authorized their forces to kill or capture individuals on the list, which was drafted within the past year as part of NATO's new strategy to combat drug operations that finance the Taliban.. . . . "There is a constitutional problem here. A person is innocent unless proven guilty," [Ali Ahmad Jalali, a former Afghan interior minister] said. "If you go off to kill or capture them, how do you prove that they are really guilty in terms of legal process?"

In other words, Afghans -- the people we're occupying in order to teach about Freedom and Democracy -- are far more protective of due process and the rule of law for their own citizens than Americans are who meekly submit to Obama's identical policy of assassination for their fellow citizens. It might make more sense for Afghanistan to invade and occupy the U.S. in order to spread the rule of law and constitutional values here.

What makes all this most remarkable is the level of screeching protests Democrats engaged in when Bush merely wanted to eavesdrop on and detain Americans without any judicial oversight or due process. Remember all that? Click here and here for a quick refresher. Yet here is Barack Obama doing far worse to them than that without any due process or judicial oversight -- he's targeting them for assassination -- and there is barely a peep of protest from the same Party that spent years depicting "mere" warrantless eavesdropping and due-process-free detention to be the acts of a savage, lawless tyrant. And, of course, Obama himself back then joined in those orgies of condemnation, as reflected by this December, 2008, answer he gave to Charlie Savage, then of The Boston Globe, regarding his views of executive power:

5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

[Obama]: No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.

So back then, Obama said the President lacks the power merely to detain U.S. citizens without charges; indeed, when asked if "the Constitution permit[s]" that, he responded: "no." Yet now, as President, he claims the power to assassinate them without charges. Could even his hardest-core loyalists try to reconcile that with a straight face? As Spencer Ackerman documented in April, not even John Yoo claimed that the President possessed the power Obama is claiming here. Given Brennan's strong suggestion that there are not merely three but "dozens" of Americans who are being targeted or at least could be ("they also will face the full brunt of a U.S. response") -- and given the huge number of times the Government has falsely accused individuals of Terrorism and its demonstrated willingness to imprison knowingly innocent detainees -- is it time yet to have a debate about whether we think the President should be able to exercise a power like this?


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: assassination; democrats; obama; terrorism; wot
Lots of links at the article. Class, discuss.
1 posted on 06/25/2010 9:40:13 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; wagglebee

Want to share your thoughts in terms of “Moral Absolutes”?


2 posted on 06/25/2010 9:42:30 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Pray (Pray!) Oh yes we Pray (Pray!)-- You've Got to Pray Just to Make it Today. --MC Hammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I didn’t see Beck and Limbaugh on the list!


3 posted on 06/25/2010 9:42:39 AM PDT by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
IMHO, any person that takes up arms against their nation has surrendered their citizenship whether or not it is formally revoked. Our founders recognized this and understood the ramifications of their actions, and what the consequences of defeat would have meant for them.
4 posted on 06/25/2010 9:47:54 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

True, but I still think that Americans on that list should be tried for treason (in a military tribunal) and hanged rather than assassinated. The slippery slope arguement has proved true in a number of other ways and I’d hate to think who will be on that list 10 or 20 years from now.


5 posted on 06/25/2010 9:52:11 AM PDT by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Boy! That's going to be one big list.

The 1960s Marxist-Alinsky street/campus rabble and their ideological issue arguably now the Establishment years ago released estimates that around one-eighth of the population is targeted.

Eliminating 25 million Americans

Obama of course is a biological and ideological child of 1960s Marxist-Alinsky street/campus revolutionary rabble.

6 posted on 06/25/2010 9:53:40 AM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

‘takes up arms against their nation has surrendered their citizenship whether or not it is formally revoked’

Shrug. The right of revolution will be done by noncitizens then.


7 posted on 06/25/2010 9:54:42 AM PDT by Palter (Kilroy was here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder
"True, but I still think that Americans on that list should be tried for treason (in a military tribunal) and hanged rather than assassinated. The slippery slope arguement has proved true in a number of other ways and I’d hate to think who will be on that list 10 or 20 years from now."

Yes...that slippery slope is not a pleasant one to think about. It would be nice to know we had people we can trust making these decisions. My problem is that even if the individual is not in direct combat with US military personnel we have no way of knowing what level of collaboration they may be engaging in...in a cold war context, imagine if an individual had defected to the eastern bloc, and was in a position to disclose the identities of US agents and contacts. We may not be able to apprehend him, but assassination remained a possibility...I would have no problem with taking them out.

You are correct however, this is not a comfortable precedent to indulge in, especially with Captain Zero at the helm.

8 posted on 06/25/2010 10:01:10 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder
True, but I still think that Americans on that list should be tried for treason (in a military tribunal) and hanged rather than assassinated.

Sure if the situation permits it, if not take out the trash.

9 posted on 06/25/2010 10:01:56 AM PDT by usurper (Liberals GET OFF MY LAWN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Palter
"Shrug. The right of revolution will be done by noncitizens then."

You must be one of those folks that equates "nation" with "government." You might be more comfortable over at DU....just sayin'

10 posted on 06/25/2010 10:03:03 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Poke... Poke... Shove ... Poke!

There's NO "ENIGMA" ... to Barack Hussein Obama II.

You want to know WHO Obama IS?

The DemocratsNational Socialists, and FASCIST Obama are DOING IT ON PURPOSE!!!!




Here's the mind of Fascist Obama, from another poster LomanBill.


So you see, FASCIST Obama is currently on stage III of their plan "bring the country to the verge of crisis".

Don't you see it?

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who wrote

And then again when he wrote


11 posted on 06/25/2010 10:04:10 AM PDT by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
how many? only 30-40m

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlN2t0oERHk

12 posted on 06/25/2010 10:06:01 AM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

13 posted on 06/25/2010 10:07:56 AM PDT by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
DU? That didn't take long.

Any American who is 'targeted' still has the Constitution to protect to them. That's pretty clear.

14 posted on 06/25/2010 10:09:16 AM PDT by Palter (Kilroy was here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

The writer is an idiot.

What’s wrong with assassinating people aiding enemies with whom we are at war?

Personally, I’d prefer to snatch ‘em, rip any intelligence they might have out them, THEN kill them, but just killing them is okay, too.

And the WHOLE WORLD is the battlefield. Where the hell does he think these clowns get funding? The United Way? (Well, maybe.) Mostly, it comes from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. Where ever there are Muslim, you can bet there are Muslim “charities” sending funds to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

If you’re funding our enemies or raising money for them, you should be subject to dying at a moment’s notice. No arrest, no trial, just *boom* you and everyone around is dead.


15 posted on 06/25/2010 10:11:27 AM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter
"Any American who is 'targeted' still has the Constitution to protect to them. That's pretty clear."

My point is that those who are out to destroy the Constitution and have taken up arms against their country have rejected their (American) citizenship and the Constitutional protections to which they would otherwise be entitled.

16 posted on 06/25/2010 10:14:21 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

The founding fathers set the bar for “Treason” very, very high. They knew what they were doing.
One of the things that I dislike around here is that “treason” is bandied around as mindlessly as “racism” is on DU.
If a person is in arms in the battlefield, or caught with information of use to our enemies with irrefutable beyond a shadow of a doubt proof that said information was intended for strategic or tactical use of a declared enemy in a declared war, *that* is treason.

Mere wanting, and fighting by legal means for an end to a government policy, including a war declared or undeclared, is not treason. Even advocating the assassination of specific government officials, although it is, and should be, highly illegal with concomitant swift attention from the authorities and justifiably grave penalties, is not treason. Even calling for a different formulation of the government via means other than violent overthrow.

As usual, the founding fathers knew more and acted more wisely than the “intellectuals” of today.


17 posted on 06/25/2010 10:37:17 AM PDT by RedStateRocker (Nuke Mecca, Deport all illegals, abolish the IRS, DEA and ATF.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg

“I didn’t see Beck and Limbaugh on the list!”

Not yet. [half joking]


18 posted on 06/25/2010 10:53:42 AM PDT by Spok (Free Range Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Glenn Beck bump


19 posted on 07/19/2010 11:19:18 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

I saw his show very alarming to say the least


20 posted on 07/20/2010 12:36:37 AM PDT by funfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | 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