Posted on 04/07/2010 7:24:39 AM PDT by kristinn
In late January, I wrote about the Obama administration's "presidential assassination program," whereby American citizens are targeted for killings far away from any battlefield, based exclusively on unchecked accusations by the Executive Branch that they're involved in Terrorism. At the time, The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of Americans, and Priest suggested that the American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was on that list. The following week, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, acknowledged in Congressional testimony that the administration reserves the "right" to carry out such assassinations.
Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield. I wrote at length about the extreme dangers and lawlessness of allowing the Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens far away from a battlefield (i.e., while they're sleeping, at home, with their children, etc.) and with no due process of any kind. I won't repeat those arguments -- they're here and here -- but I do want to highlight how unbelievably Orwellian and tyrannical this is in light of these new articles today.
Just consider how the NYT reports on Obama's assassination order and how it is justified:
The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday. . . .
American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.
It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president. . . .
"The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words," said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. "He’s gotten involved in plots."
No due process is accorded. No charges or trials are necessary. No evidence is offered, nor any opportunity for him to deny these accusations (which he has done vehemently through his family). None of that.
Instead, in Barack Obama's America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens -- and a death penalty imposed -- is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone's guilt as a Terrorist. He then dispatches his aides to run to America's newspapers -- cowardly hiding behind the shield of anonymity which they're granted -- to proclaim that the Guilty One shall be killed on sight because the Leader has decreed him to be a Terrorist. It is simply asserted that Awlaki has converted from a cleric who expresses anti-American views and advocates attacks on American military targets (advocacy which happens to be Constitutionally protected) to Actual Terrorist "involved in plots." These newspapers then print this Executive Verdict with no questioning, no opposition, no investigation, no refutation as to its truth. And the punishment is thus decreed: this American citizen will now be murdered by the CIA because Barack Obama has ordered that it be done. What kind of person could possibly justify this or think that this is a legitimate government power?
(Excerpt) Read more at Salon.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_absentia#In_absentia_under_United_States_law
In post 124 you pasted a list of “in absentia” trials. The list obviously came from Wikipedia list of examples.
The section just above the examples goes through a long explanation of why “in absentia” trials have not been accepted in the US for over 100 years.
Don’t be mean.
We attacked an al Qaeda camp in Yemen with cruise missiles in December. This was undoubtedly approved by Obama.
So do you believe that Obama should be able to make up the rules of law as he goes along or ignore our constitution? I guess yoou don’t see a problem with his hypocrisy and lies. You obviously trust the man, I don’t. He is the one that ran on a campaign to ‘end the wars’ and give foreign terrorists ‘rights’ and ‘trails’. Suddenly there is an American citizen involved in ‘instigating’ Islamic radical jihad and Obama just ‘deems’ the man to death without affording him the same ‘rights’ he gives to foreign terrorists? The CIA doesn’t have to read him his rights..yet Obama puts our military men and women in impossible situations on the battle field with ridiculous ROE and the reading of miranda rights in the middle of a war?
PS. Awlaki is only a citizen by Unconstitutional Supreme Court fiat. The SOB was was born here to non-citizens.
The US is not at war with FreRepublic and we are Americans on American soil. WE are not levying war agains the United States.
There is a great Twilight Zone episode called The Obsolete Man, with Burgess Meridith and Fritz Weaver, about how the State has sole power to declare someone obsolete and worthy of “liquidation”
Interesting...you can’t imprison them, but you can kill them without trial!?
Funny....I just brought up his name last night when describing a fellow I know, who just got hired by the Feds.
Due to complacency, the government should run roughshod over the citizens.
We don't deserve any better.
It's why I changed my tagline.
If true, does anyone have the legal process, docs on this?
So ... plug in a different name instead of a Muslim terrorist ... say, a political opponent or other opposition leader ... what do we have?
Whoa.
Wouldn’t there be enough evidence to bag the terrorist and put him on ice? Give him due process?
A liberal rag like Salon is using terms like “unbelievably Orwellian”? Nah - no way a liberal would ever wake up to the reality of “change”...
Hitler, Lenin Stalin Mao... they all had to start the killings somewhere... start with a person on the line - then move up...
It spreads - always does.
How long until "the vast right wing conspiracy" gets hit? How many weeks before it's just plain old Republicans leaders being shot?
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew...
Gee, I wonder how long before this policy is applied to those racist, anti-American “Nazis” congregating at tea party rallies?
I didn’t read that part.
I still hate you.
I hate people who have Latin in their taglines.
Heh! There's a name I haven't heard in awhile! The towel-head isn't a nursing mom married to a "gun nut", so I'm guessing Lon won't be assigned on this one.
The fact that the Court disapproves of trials in absentia only amplifies the unconstitutionality and illegality of denying the individual a trial altogether, by murdering him.
So-called Liberals will talk to the folks at Salon. Maybe some Chicago style pressure if they don't see the logic quick enough.
Who wants to bet Glenn Greenwald doesn't have a job next year?
Nat Hentoff would have been able to fight back - a "Greenwald"? He doesn't have a chance.
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.