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.
Now, 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?
Just to get a sense for how extreme this behavior is, consider — as the NYT reported — that not even George Bush targeted American citizens for this type of extra-judicial killing (though a 2002 drone attack in Yemen did result in the death of an American citizen). Even more strikingly, Antonin Scalia, in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, wrote an Opinion (joined by Justice Stevens) arguing that it was unconstitutional for the U.S. Government merely to imprison (let alone kill) American citizens as "enemy combatants"; instead, they argued, the Constitution required that Americans be charged with crimes (such as treason) and be given a trial before being punished.
The full Hamdi Court held that at least some due process was required before Americans could be imprisoned as "enemy combatants." Yet now, Barack Obama is claiming the right not merely to imprison, but to assassinate far from any battlefield, American citizens with no due process of any kind. Even GOP Congressman Pete Hoekstra, when questioning Adm. Blair, recognized the severe dangers raised by this asserted power.
And what about all the progressives who screamed for years about the Bush administration’s tyrannical treatment of Jose Padilla? Bush merely imprisoned Padilla for years without a trial. If that’s a vicious, tyrannical assault on the Constitution — and it was — what should they be saying about the Nobel Peace Prize winner’s assassination of American citizens without any due process?
All of this underscores the principal point made in this excellent new article by Eli Lake, who compellingly and comprehensively documents what readers here well know: that while Obama’s "speeches and some of his administration’s policy rollouts have emphasized a break from the Bush era," the reality is that the administration has retained and, in some cases, built upon the core Bush/Cheney approach to civil liberties and Terrorism. As Al Gore asked in his superb 2006 speech protesting Bush’s "War on the Constitution":
Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution?
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 the inherent authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, imprison American citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can’t he do?
Notice the power that was missing from Gore’s indictment of Bush radicalism: the power to kill American citizens. Add that to the litany — as Obama has now done — and consider how much more compelling Gore’s accusatory questions become.
This article originally appeared on the web site of Glenn Greenwald.
UPDATE: When Obama was seeking the Democratic nomination, the Constitutional Law Scholar answered a questionnaire about executive power distributed by The Boston Globe‘s Charlie Savage, and this was one of his answers:
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. 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 documents today, not even John Yoo claimed that the President possessed the power Obama is claiming here.
UPDATE II: If you’re going to argue that this is all justified because Awlaki is an Evil, Violent, Murdering Terrorist Trying to Kill Americans, you should say how you know that. Generally, guilt is determined by having a trial where the evidence is presented and the accused has an opportunity to defend himself — not by putting blind authoritarian faith in the unchecked accusations of government leaders, even if it happens to be Barack Obama. That’s especially true given how many times accusations of Terrorism by the U.S. Government have proven to be false.
UPDATE III: Congratulations, Barack Obama: you’re now to the Right of National Review on issues of executive power and due process, as Kevin Williamson objects: "Surely there has to be some operational constraint on the executive when it comes to the killing of U.S. citizens. . . . Odious as Awlaki is, this seems to me to be setting an awful and reckless precedent. " But Andy McCarthy — who is about the most crazed Far Right extremist on such matters as it gets, literally — is as pleased as can be with what Obama is doing (or, as Gawker puts it, "Obama Does Something Bloodthirsty Enough to Please the Psychos").
[quote name=”Elly”] I live in the U.S. where second-amendment advocates make it so that I feel uncomfortable walking in my own neighborhood…Until ALL guns go away, I don’t want the criminals to be the only ones who have them.[/quote]
You realize that 2nd amendment advocates want the good guys to have guns, and they want convicted felons and mental cases to be prohibited from having them, right? I’m not sure why you’d be afraid of the people who support non-criminals having guns. You seem to agree with the idea that ordinary citizens should have guns, which is even more confusing.
Oh and punishment without a trial is not cool at all. All Americans should be standing up for the constitution, especially the tea party since that’s one thing they claim to hold dear.
Wow, Isabella. You seem to have about 20 ideas stuffed in to 3 sentences. Can you point out specifically where the U.S. media is spinning this hatred, besides FOX, of course? Thanks!
I can think of someome who would be very proud of USA\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’s media spinning unadulterated hate for muslims in general and for shooting one in particular on sight. He would have liked Obama. Hitler smiling in his grave.
To Tania: I have a friend in the U.S. who moved out of South Africa (originally from England) because he did not feel safe. I’m so sorry that is happening to you. At least in the U.S., our government-run police force is pretty clean, and if not, the corruption is usually dealt with. I have an idea for you if you just email me privately. efaden1@gmail.com
So, what’s wrong with a little socialism? I use the libraries, roads, dams, public universities, and I’m grateful for prisons…….[yes, many CAN be improved–by Democrats]. You want to privatize all of these? Why would I want to stay in the U.S.? I’m proud of the WPA, medicare for elders, etc. Call me a socialist, please!
Please, do you really think that administration ordered killings didn’t happen before THIS administration? We all need to wake up and realize that the good ole USA with life, liberty &justice for all, is a MYTH. People yell about becoming a socialist nation, but we have been doing just that for quite a while. Look at all the SOCIAL welfare programs we already have. Especially the ones that have been in place for over 40 years. Interestingly enough, if anybody talks about cutting these already in place programs,there are a majority of people that scream bloody murder about it. And speaking of murder, how many murders or ‘accidents’ do you think were ordered by the ‘Bush-Cheney’ group?
Etain
I SAY KILL THE BASTARDS LIKE HIM- FOR THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.TOMORROW THEY KILL U OR UR FAMILY-WILL U THEN STILL THINK THE SAME?I DOUBT IT.MURDERERS SHOULD GET WHAT THEY DESERVE.WE WHITE HERE IN SOUTH AFRICA ARE GETTING MURDERED EVERY DAY-THE MURDERER GETS THROWN IN JAIL FOR A FEW YEARS-GETS OUT AND CARRIES ON HIS SPREE.WE HAVE NO JUSTICE IN THIS COUNTRY-PEOPLE KILL AND RAPE AND BLUNGEON OTHERS TO DEATH AND BASICALLY GET OFF SCOTT-FREE.WE WANT THE DEATH PENALTY BACK HERE BUT IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.WHAT IS IT OFF THE BACKS OF THE GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE RULE AND BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY? WHY DO THEY KEEP FILING THE PRISONS AND THE TAXPAYER MUST PAY FOR THEM WHO MURDERED TO HAVE A ROYAL LIFE BEHIND BARS?THIS COUNTRY IS SO CORRUPT EVEN THE POLICE FORCE IS CORRUPT AND COMMIT CRIMES THEMSELVES AND IT GETS COVERED UP.THIS COUNTRY IS IN CHAOS AND CRIME IS RIFE!!THERE IS NO ORDER IN THE COUNTRY-MURDER AND RAPE IS THE ORDER OF THE DAY HERE!!!BUT THE SYSTEM MOANS THE PRISONS ARE BECOMING SO FULL THEY WANT TO RELEASE PRISONERS WHO HAVE NOT TOTALLY SERVED OUT THEIR SENTENCE TIME TO MAKE PLACE FOR OTHERS COMING IN.WHAT? WHAT TYPE OF LAW SYSTEM IS THIS.A LIFE FOR A LIFE-BRING BACK THE DEATH SENTENCE!!THEY TOOK A PIECE OF S..T OFF THE STREETS-WHO NEEDS THEM IN SOCIETY?
TCM-SOUTH AFRICA
Ron Bradbury, you talk like a man who is insane, you don’t talk like a patriot. Your comments is in favour of the wanted felon and Al qhda. How can you say Obama has no right to order for the Elimination of an Enemy. This guy is a terror and a threat to you,your Children and the free people of the World. you want him to continue his killing spree right, and becos he is a USA Citizen he should be allowed to continue mass killings right. Ron i suggest that if you don’t have any meaningfull contribution to make then you keep quit
Ok, So this guy is a bad guy, but you have to look at it this way. If Obama can kill a U.S. Citizen over seas without due prosses, then next time lets say he labels you as a terrorist (I mean after all he labels American Patriotism as dangerous and low level terrorism) Next time he comes after us in our home land without due prosses. You see these aare baby steps in the American Public being fooled that it is ok to do this. He excersising a test to see what our reaction is, if he did this on our soil we would rise up against him in a heartbeat. If he does it this way he can make it “Socialy Acceptable” and eventually come after every one of us. There have been attempts at making America a Socialist State in the past, who’s to say this man couldn’t make the same attempt!!!
What the H*** are you doing putting a headline out this!! I’m not a legal scholar so I’m not knowledgeable enough to debate the legality of this issue and I’m ambiguous about the morality of it too. This is a bad, bad guy they want to take down… you do a service when you inform us about these kind of complicated issues however stop with the sensational headlines. That headline sounds like Obama is out there stalking average hard-working American citizens at night! Let’s try a little more objectivity in chosing your words and headlines. We have Sarah Palin and Michelle Bauman and the rest of the right wingnut tea baggers telling us we should be scared to death of this administration – turn down your volume! Paula Hannah
Ron,
Thanks. I live in the U.S. where second-amendment advocates make it so that I feel uncomfortable walking in my own neighborhood. We have had many shootings here, mostly innocent people like 7-11 clerks and ice-cream ladies. I am very active in the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Until ALL guns go away, I don’t want the criminals to be the only ones who have them.
NO NO NO – How can anybody sanely advocate that a fleeing suspected felon be shot! Threatening with a weapon with full transparency and accountability, yes. This is the stuff of Gestapo …. and worse is happening …. no question a President and others were assassinated by people who in the most clandestine organizations of your DEMOCRACY (remember) have been “removed” and ordinary citizens subjected to elimination and terror at the hands of the same secret service organizations, doing “what is best” for the American people ….. NOT ON!
Here in Australia there is no doubt in my mind that such a substantive accusation would lead to a Royal Commission Inquiry – where (i guess like a Judicial Inquiry) where failure to answer (except under self-incrimination legislation)is an offense – would be enacted – which if proven would lead to impeachment.
So why is this not in process in your so called Democracy?
“If he runs, shoot him?” You put him in an awkward position when he knows if he’s caught he’s going to be detained w/o process, tortured, and killed by the U.S. government. I’d run, too.
Hopefully, we can catch him without incident.
“The right to sue and defend is the alternative to force. It lies at the foundation of orderly government.” Supreme Court Justice Moody
I understand what you are saying. But if Republicans can make death threats against Democrats simply because they voted for healthcare, I guess we\\\’ve returned an age of lawlessness. Of course, it would be better to capture al-Awlaki, but if he runs, I say shoot him.
“If he were a known thug running around in ghettos, the police would have the right to shoot and kill.”
No, the police would not have the right to shoot and kill someone who was BELIEVED to have committed a crime. In the middle of being caught to doing some crimes, yes. But now just because someone thinks that you are a criminal.
Is it really a democracy if there is no trial by jury?
Well, it seems as if Alwaki is getting his trial here.
Obama is really mad at this guy because it’s pretty obvious what he’s done. If he were a known thug running around in ghettos, the police would have the right to shoot and kill.
Obama is once again showing courage and strength in making this statement.