Assassination nation: Are there any limits

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

Rockville, Md. – How much evidence should the US government be obliged to show before it kills an American citizen?

None, according to the Obama administration.

And how much evidence should the government be obliged to possess of an American’s wrongdoing before officially targeting them for killing?

That’s a secret, according to the Obama team.

As part of its war against violent extremism, the Obama administration now claims a right to kill Americans without a trial, without notice, and without any chance for targets to legally object. On May 6, the US government launched a drone attack to try to kill a US citizen in Yemen. The Obama administration alleges that Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born Muslim cleric, helped spark killings at Fort Hood, Texas, and an attempt to blow up a jetliner in 2009. Mr. Awlaki might be a four-star bad guy, but government press releases and background briefings have not previously been sufficient to justify capital punishment. The drone attack failed to terminate Awlaki, though two other people were killed.

The US government has admitted that it has added the names of other Americans to a list for targeted killing. The American Civil Liberties Union sued last year to compel the government “to disclose the legal standard it uses to place US citizens on government kill lists,” but was thwarted when the Obama administration claimed the entire program was a “state secret.” Last December, federal Judge John Bates dismissed the ACLU’s lawsuit because “there are circumstances in which the Executive’s unilateral decision to kill a US citizen overseas” is “judicially unreviewable.”

Presidential power grabsUnfortunately, the current assassination program is merely an extension of presidential power grabs going back into the last century. In 1998, President Clinton launched a missile strike against a Sudan pill producer after US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. After the US government failed to offer any evidence linking its target in Sudan to the terrorist attacks, the owners of Sudan’s largest pharmaceutical factory sued for compensation for damage. In 2009, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decreed: “President Clinton, in his capacity as commander in chief, fired missiles at a target of his choosing to pursue a military objective he had determined was in the national interest. Under the Constitution, this decision is immune from judicial review.”

Evidently, as long as the president or his spokesmen claim benevolent motives, any killings they authorize are legally sacrosanct.

Congress has done nothing to examine this new presidential prerogative. Instead, many members of Congress favor codifying this power.

On May 11, the House Armed Services Committee passed a defense reauthorization bill that included a vague provision entitling the president to attack “Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.” But the executive branch can define “associated forces” any way it pleases. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) complained that “declaring a global war against nameless individuals, organizations, and nations ‘associated’ with the Taliban and al Qaeda, as well as those playing a supporting role in their efforts ... would appear to grant the President near unfettered authority to initiate military action around the world without further congressional approval.” Dozens of members co-signed Conyers’s complaint.

The Obama administration acts as if the executive branch deserves “unreviewable authority to target and kill any US citizen it deems a suspect of terrorism anywhere,” according to Center for Constitutional Rights attorney Pardiss Kebriae. But the feds have a horrible batting average on accurately identifying terrorist suspects. In the six weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the US government rounded up 1,200 people as suspected terrorists or terrorist supporters. None of the detainees proved to have links to the 9/11 attacks. Federal judges have rejected the government’s case against most of the Guantanamo detainees who succeeded in getting a hearing in court.

Scary precedentsSome Americans may think the president’s license to kill is simply a temporary tactic for the war on terror. But precedents being established today will be invoked by future commanders-in-chief who may have a much broader “enemies lists” or who have no qualms about expanding the action from the Arab Street to Main Street. As long as government spokesmen label the victims as terrorist suspects, many Americans might cheer “pro-freedom” assassinations no matter where they occur.

Killings based solely on presidential commands radically transform the relation of the government to the citizenry. Americans cannot expect to have good presidents if presidents are permitted to act like czars.

James Bovard is the author of “Attention Deficit Democracy” and “Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty.”

link

[luckytxn 2,264]

I can see Obama start ordering the killing of any political opponents.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Enjoyed this read.

Thanks for posting it.

Geez,we condemn other countries for assasinating, imprisoning and executing under the guise of "enemies of the state".

Definitely some reflection needed here.

[thongd4me 69]

Elsewhere I have registered my unbridled approval of the snuffing of the Osama Bin Laden.

I think the world is better off whithout him. That being said, I'd like to present a very unique

dissenting opinion (of which I have to add that I met him in person a few years back).

This guy who is now 92 years old is a living legend, was there at the Nuremburg trials as chief prosecutor.

He is Jewish. He is one of the most compelling and convincing speakers I have ever heard in person.

His post-Nuremburg credentials are as a crusader for the "rule of law" and as the most forceful

proponent of the creation of the International Criminal Court which came about on 1 July 2002

through the ratification of the Rome Statute.

Ben Ferencz to NY Times on Bin Laden Killing

To the Editor:

Your superb report "Behind the Hunt for Bin Laden" leaves key questions unanswered.

Jubilation over the death of the most hunted mass murderer is understandable,

but was it really justifiable self-defense, or was it premeditated illegal assassination?

The Nuremberg trials earned worldwide respect by giving Hitler's worst henchmen

a fair trial so that truth would be revealed and justice under law would prevail.

Secret nonjudicial decisions based on political or military considerations undermine democracy.

The public is entitled to know the complete truth.

BENJAMIN B. FERENCZ

New Rochelle, N.Y., May 3, 2011

The writer was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials.

He has a very good point, because if we ourselves do not follow the "rule of law"

we can never insist that other countries do so as well.

Edited May 18, 2011 by thongd4me

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I can see Obama start ordering the killing of any political opponents.

You think? Seems like a stretch to me. Just a bit...

[ready4ONE 5,400]

RWN attempts to turn a huge victory for Obama, our troops, our nation, and the world into 'they killed Osama,, you could be next' fantasy are interesting excersizes in mental jujitsu to read.

[peejay 327]

RWN attempts to turn a huge victory for Obama, our troops, our nation, and the world into 'they killed Osama,, you could be next' fantasy are interesting excersizes in mental jujitsu to read.

I'm all for covert killing of our enemies that plot terror attacks on the USA whether they are foreign nationals or traitor US citizen converts plotting from abroad. The key here is that they are on foreign soil and are not accessible by conventional methods used domestically. If covert assassination is the best and only method of neutralizing the threat...then so be it.

As far as Obama goes...I don't care who is in office as long as the job gets done. The big question I have is whether the LWNs would be on board with this tactic if it was a conservative Republican in office rather than their messiah Obama.

The Left has ratcheted down their usual venom on such hard line methods since their hero Obama took office. Where are the usual comparisons of "murderer, war criminal, Nazi-ism, Gestapo tactics", etc. the Left spewed out with regularity toward GWB when he took these hard line stances?

I have no problem with this tactic...only the politicization of it depending on who is in office.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Or the wishful thinking of some posters who can't understand anything without putting a partisan spin on it.

For the record, assassinating people is pretty reprehensible - but I think most people realise that a lot of less than savory things go on behind the scenes and that wet-work predates George W. Bush or Barack Obama.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I don't think this is a Left or Right Wing Nut issue, although it gets used as such. I have no doubt in my mind, had this opportunity, killing OBL, presented itself when Bush was in office it would have taken place.

In regards to the USC targeted in the OP unless he turns himself in voluntarily he has very publicly joined the ranks of OBL. In English he recruits fellow terrorists, including American citizens, to join the Islamo-Fascist jihad. His recruits have committed both successful and failed terrorist attacks and I personally understand our desire to stop him, be it by arrest or assassination.

[Zero Sum 305]

You think? Seems like a stretch to me. Just a bit...

While the legal principle may be a bit to worry over- if we ignore the fact the challenged principles are merely formalized practices over the last couple of decades; it is a little more than a stretch, yes. A lot of it is paranoia from paranoid people.

[slim 1,530]

What I find ironic is the same folks who wave the flag and go on about "America, f'k yeah!" when we fire million dollar laser-guided missiles from remotely operated unmanned aircraft onto houses or cars full of people are all upset when people try to bomb us. "That aint right!"

This is exactly why I'm not happy we're waving the flag on this assassination. Clearly it's illegal. Clearly it's secretive nature opens the door for the government to do exactly the same thing to any one of us and clearly the whole country is in support of it.

WHY?

Why do people continue to waive their rights? What is wrong with us?

[Zero Sum 305]

What I find ironic is the same folks who wave the flag and go on about "America, f'k yeah!" when we fire million dollar laser-guided missiles from remotely operated unmanned aircraft onto houses or cars full of people are all upset when people try to bomb us. "That aint right!"

This is exactly why I'm not happy we're waving the flag on this assassination. Clearly it's illegal. Clearly it's secretive nature opens the door for the government to do exactly the same thing to any one of us and clearly the whole country is in support of it.

WHY?

Why do people continue to waive their rights? What is wrong with us?

Well its a case of political selectivity. You must be talking about those people that have no problem of getting that 'patriotic' when we see infrared clips of Apache helicopters cutting down unarmed civilians in Iraq during the last presidential terms, but are now getting over their Team America moment and classifying the hit on OBL as beyond legality.

Honestly I agree with you that he should have been apprehended. The video will have to be released, it will or may show something we don't like. And then new critiques will arise. Such is politics.