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.

[illiac]

Long, but worth the read....

[Westbrook]

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.

[IronJack]

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.

[DBeers]

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.

[xzins]

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

[DBeers]

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

[beef]

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.

[bert]

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

[csmusaret]

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?

[xzins]

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.

[bert]

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.

[xzins]

ping to posts #5 and 10

[csmusaret]

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

[Tau Food]

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?

[bert]

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?

[csmusaret]

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?

[bert]

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.

[csmusaret]

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

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[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.

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.