Assassination nation: Are there any limits on President Obama's license to kill?

[spidersandsnakes]

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.

RELATED: Anwar al-Awlaki: Is it legal to kill an American in war on terror?

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.”

[redrum]

Just ask Randy Weaver.

[Silver Rider]

You're talking about this guy...and notice the wording; it is the CIA kill or capture list. They don't have to kill him. They're not under strict orders to kill. And they can't simply deny due process. There must be an imminent threat of danger.

The law does not permit them to take random target practice on people just because they're in a shooting mood.

By the way, his father is trying to have him removed from the kill or capture list.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CNN Exclusive: Al-Awlaki's father says son is 'not Osama bin Laden'

By Paula Newton, CNN

articles.cnn.com

His anguish apparent, the father of Anwar al-Awlaki told CNN that his son is not a member of al Qaeda and is not hiding out with terrorists in southern Yemen."I am now afraid of what they will do with my son, he's not Osama Bin Laden, they want to make something out of him that he's not," said Dr. Nasser al-Awlaki, the father of American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Exclusive: Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11

By Catherine Herridge

foxnews.com

The Pentagon has offered no explanation of how a man, now on the CIA kills or capture list, ended up at a special lunch for Muslim outreach.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose “a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests,” said one former intelligence official.

emptywheel.firedoglake.com

[ally]

What does his citizenship have to do with it ? He's a known terrorist who managed to con a few . As far asd I'm concerned they should shoot him and every known member of Al Watthefuck.

[MrZoSo]

What does his citizenship have to do with it ? He's a known terrorist who managed to con a few . As far asd I'm concerned they should shoot him and every known member of Al Watthefuck.

[JohnnyBgoode]

So true^. Its not like Obama is putting a secret police against his critics. This "U.S. Citizen" is a terrorist, simple as that. Whether they capture or kill him is not up to me, and quite frankly i could care less. The sooner they do something about this fool the better.

[lzzoso]

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

How about also stating the fact that this "American citizen", Anwar al-Awlaki that the U.S. government is targeting for assassination, is an individual who has renounced his citizenship and his country, hides in Yemen and now vows to do all that he and his idiot followers can do to attack and kill as many innocent real Americans in the United States or any other place where "WE" might be (that includes You and Me). I just wish that the first drone attack against him would have killed him then. I have complete confidence that this terrorist, al-awlaki, will be dead within the next year or two. He has every right to be scared shitless because he knows his days are numbered.

Back in the Osama bin Laden thread (post #533), You stated that you "would add other names to that terrorist list":

"The past Bush administration

The American Gun lobby

Giuliani and his band of Mafiosis

The CIA

The FBI" (Your words)

I think that this is one of the dumbest things that I have ever read on these forums. And believe me, I have been accused of saying some dumb things myself. Does this mean that You would rather call George W. Bush (etc...) more of a terrorist than Anwar al-Awlaki? That is the impression that I get.

I say that you (and others) really look inside and think about who the REAL terrorists are. I would think that any reasonable and sensible Human can tell good from bad, right from wrong.

[dazedcat]

Don't feel so bad Spiders, I hang around the same Patriot conspiracy websites as you do. You just tripped over your own agenda though.

[Silver Rider]

This is the guy they are targeting. He does alright simply talking about love and forgiveness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0BRSw_h2jQ

[spidersandsnakes]

TO IZZOSO:

Nope, the DUMBEST thing I have read is your reply HERE:). I'm SIMPLY saying that that list I provided is ON EXACTLY THE SAME LEVEL of any other terrorist list!!. On the other hand, are you trying to say that just because those people on my list are American so they cannot be terrorists??!!

PLS WAKE UP BEFORE replying to me or do not reply at all:)

[spidersandsnakes]

Don't feel so bad Spiders, I hang around the same Patriot conspiracy websites as you do. You just tripped over your own agenda though.

Who me?? I couldn't care less about about the "ignorant" (= people who ignore he facts:)) posters here:). I'm DEBATING while they are blabbering nonsense:). You know, part of good debating is going against what we say ourselves if it helps to get the msg over. The BEST debaters know how to debate against their own ideas as well:)

[lzzoso]

TO IZZOSO:

Nope, the DUMBEST thing I have read is your reply HERE:). I'm SIMPLY saying that that list I provided is ON EXACTLY THE SAME LEVEL of any other terrorist list!!. On the other hand, are you trying to say that just because those people on my list are American so they cannot be terrorists??!!

PLS WAKE UP BEFORE replying to me or do not reply at all:)

First off, my screen name is lzzoso (as in ledzeppelinzoso.

Second, in your rationale and logic, how are the people and institutions on your list "ON EXACTLY THE SAME LEVEL of any other terrorist list"? None of them hijacked planes and flew them into buildings killing around 3,000 innocent people. Can you be more specific and at least give reasons that you believe make them terrorists. I would love to read why you say and believe such things.

Third, I can't believe you give up so quick. I have gone back and forth with a couple of people and even they did not tell me to stop replying to them. If they did, they did not do so after one simple exchange.

Lastly, a good debater is willingly to listen to others ideas (no matter how ridiculous that may be) and then be able support or defend his ideas or beliefs. Point. Counterpoint.

[BIGDAN]

First off, my screen name is lzzoso (as in ledzeppelinzoso.

Second, in your rationale and logic, how are the people and institutions on your list "ON EXACTLY THE SAME LEVEL of any other terrorist list"? None of them hijacked planes and flew them into buildings killing around 3,000 innocent people. Can you be more specific and at least give reasons that you believe make them terrorists. I would love to read why you say and believe such things.

Third, I can't believe you give up so quick. I have gone back and forth with a couple of people and even they did not tell me to stop replying to them. If they did, they did not do so after one simple exchange.

Lastly, a good debater is willingly to listen to others ideas (no matter how ridiculous that may be) and then be able support or defend his ideas or beliefs. Point. Counterpoint.

Hi LZZOSO,

A "Good Debater" can handle multiple Debaters, so you could say they are "Mass-Debaters" couldn't you?

Retards, Danny

[SuperDave]

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

How about also stating the fact that this "American citizen", Anwar al-Awlaki that the U.S. government is targeting for assassination, is an individual who has renounced his citizenship and his country, hides in Yemen and now vows to do all that he and his idiot followers can do to attack and kill as many innocent real Americans in the United States or any other place where "WE" might be (that includes You and Me). I just wish that the first drone attack against him would have killed him then. I have complete confidence that this terrorist, al-awlaki, will be dead within the next year or two. He has every right to be scared shitless because he knows his days are numbered.

Back in the Osama bin Laden thread (post #533), You stated that you "would add other names to that terrorist list":

"The past Bush administration

The American Gun lobby

Giuliani and his band of Mafiosis

The CIA

The FBI" (Your words)

I think that this is one of the dumbest things that I have ever read on these forums. And believe me, I have been accused of saying some dumb things myself. Does this mean that You would rather call George W. Bush (etc...) more of a terrorist than Anwar al-Awlaki? That is the impression that I get.

I say that you (and others) really look inside and think about who the REAL terrorists are. I would think that any reasonable and sensible Human can tell good from bad, right from wrong.

Definitely one of the most asinine statements I've ever read on this board as well.

[Electrophile]

Nah, Bush and his buddies aren't terrorists. Bush is too feeble-minded to be a terrorist, Cheney was the real brains behind that administration. Bush just did what he was told. Cheney is the guy who authorized the usage of torture, so if anything it should be his ass in leg irons at the Hague, but there's no precedent for prosecuting American vice-presidents for actions undertaken during a war, so it'll never happen.

That said, one of the few things I've really come down hard on Obama for the last 2 1/2 years is the fact he has not come down hard on them for that and explicitly outlawed the usage of torture. I don't understand how we can claim to be the "greatest country in the world" when we do things that we prosecuted the Germans, Japanese, and Vietnamese for doing to our own soldiers. Makes not a lick of sense.

[Anjin-san]

Hi all,

I find it ironic that on one hand Obama campaigned to close Gitmo, but has actually in practice continued to support it. He also has continued with drone attacks and now the assassination of OBL.

Barry,was told that closing Gitmo was a bad idea,he changed his mind.Of course he did release a few innocents and most of them have gone back to being terrorists.

There is a law that the FBI,CIA,NSA,etc.,etc., can not assassinate a head of state.OBL was not.

So where are his policies different from Bush? Does that make him feeble minded as well? Makes a lot of sense if Obama's campaign promises were just empty promises to get elected.

Barry has no clue,at all.

KB

[SteveAJones]

Hi LZZOSO,

A "Good Debater" can handle multiple Debaters, so you could say they are "Mass-Debaters" couldn't you?

Retards, Danny

Our resident acid casualty is a compulsive mass debater which is all good and well except he's firing blanks time and time again.

[SteveAJones]

That said, one of the few things I've really come down hard on Obama for the last 2 1/2 years is the fact he has not come down hard on them for that and explicitly outlawed the usage of torture. I don't understand how we can claim to be the "greatest country in the world" when we do things that we prosecuted the Germans, Japanese, and Vietnamese for doing to our own soldiers. Makes not a lick of sense.

...though you cannot seem to make any distinction between them, apples and oranges are in fact different things.

[SuperDave]

Nice use of video Steve!

[lzzoso]

Our resident acid casualty is a compulsive mass debater which is all good and well except he's firing blanks time and time again.

I am a bit confused but not dazed. Am I, lzzoso, the resident acid casualty or is snakesandspiders who is the casualty? He is the one who started this topic and has seemed to have abandoned it after a couple of good replies back to him that he never responded to. I take that as a sign of defeat on his part. Stand up and defend your thoughts, actions, and beliefs. I know I do.

You if really mean me, that is cool, I can take it. I did do alot of LSD back in my high school days during the mid - late 1980's. I have said that before that if I can dish it out, I can sure take it too. If it is me, you may say that I am firing blanks, however, my blanks seem to be making a sound.

[SteveAJones]

Am I, lzzoso, the resident acid casualty or is snakesandspiders who is the casualty?

It's not you...

[BIGDAN]

It's not you...

Thats narrowed it down a bit then?

[spidersandsnakes]

It's not you...

If it's NOT Bigdan, then it must be YOU :):) :hurrah: :hurrah: :hurrah:

[spidersandsnakes]

Thats narrowed it down a bit then?

....or it might very well be you, only he's bluffing, hehehehehehhee B)

[BIGDAN]

....or it might very well be you, only he's bluffing, hehehehehehhee B)

Hi Spider,

Only I fire .50 caliber not blanks.

Regards, Danny