EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Obama Cans Regulator Who Crossed Wall Street
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
Popular content
Today's Top News
Kucinich: White House Assassination Policy Is Extrajudicial
There has been almost universal silence among Congressional Democrats on the Obama administration's recently revealed decision to authorize the assassination of a US citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, has been accused of providing inspiration for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the alleged "underwear bomber," and Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood shooter. In recent weeks, there has been a dramatic surge in US government chatter about the alleged threat posed by al-Awlaki, with anonymous US officials accusing him of directly participating in terror "plots" (his family passionately disputes this).
Several Democrats refused, through spokespeople, to comment on the
assassination plan when contacted by The Nation, including
Senator Russ Feingold and Representative Jan Schakowsky, both of whom
serve on the Intelligence Committees. Representative Jane Harman, who
serves on the Homeland Security Committee, said recently that Awlaki is
"probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No. 1 in
terms of threat against us."
One of the few Democrats to publicly address the issue of government-sanctioned assassinations is Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich. "I don't support it--period," he said in an interview. "I think people in both parties that are concerned about the Constitution should be speaking out on this. I can't account for what anyone else doesn't do."
Kucinich told The Nation he has sent several letters to the Obama administration raising questions about the potential unconstitutionality of the policy, as well as possible violations of international law, but has received no response. "With all the smart people that are in that administration, they've got to know the risks that they're taking here with violations of law," he says.
Targeted killings are not a new Obama administration policy. Beginning three days after his swearing in, President Obama has authorized scores of lethal drone strikes, including against specific individuals, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, surpassing the Bush era numbers. The elite Joint Special Operations Command maintains a list of individuals, including US citizens, which it is authorized to assassinate. In January, Dana Priest reported in the Washington Post that the CIA had US citizens on an assassination list, but the Post later ran a correction stating that only JSOC had "a target list that includes several Americans." The policy of the CIA targeting al-Awlaki, a US citizen, for assassination, therefore, appeared to be a new development, at least in terms of public awareness of approved government assassinations.
"In the real world, things don't work out quite so neatly as they seem to in the heads of the CIA," says Kucinich. "There's always the possibility of blowback, which could endanger high-ranking US officials. There's the inevitable licensing of rogue groups that comes about from policies that are not strictly controlled and that get sloppy--so you have zero accountability. And that's not even to get into an over-arching issue of the morality of assassination policies, which are extra-constitutional, extra-judicial. It's very dangerous from every possible perspective."
He added: "The assassination policies vitiate the presumption of innocence and the government then becomes the investigator, policeman, prosecutor, judge, jury, executioner all in one. That raises the greatest questions with respect to our constitution and our democratic way of life."
Kucinich says the case of al-Awlaki is an attempt to make "a short-cut around the Constitution," saying, "Short-cuts often belie the deep and underlying questions around which nations rise and fall. We are really putting our nation in jeopardy by pursuing this kind of policy."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
213 Comments so far
Show AllThe "war on terror' is a damn fraud and the whole thing reeks of moral bankruptcy.
Why is it that Dennis J Kucinich is virtually the only Democrat in the congress speaking out against this madness.
AD
Because it doesn't matter (to them)
DK can't do anything. Besides, he has no credibility now that he caved on the healthcare bill.
What's he trying to do, restore his image?
Traitor.
Really. So in your books compromising on one issue totally destroys one's credibility on all others? If you are wrong on one thing, you are wrong on everything.
So Dennis Kucinich has no credibility when he urges the US government to stop targeted killings because he held his nose and helped pass a bad health care bill?
So by this logic, then, you reject his stand on targeted killings as one having no credibility. Therefore you are in favour of targeted killings.
Further, in your estimation, anyone who is less than one hundred percent purely ideological on ALL issues ALL of the time has no credibility whatsoever.
So the only people who would have credibility with you are those who put ideology ahead of practical progress. So that would be folks like Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, and the crowd. Oh, and apparently, Kent Shaw.
Good thinking.
Very well put.
Thank you.
If you're dumb enough to call DK a traitor, you have the political understanding usually attributed to Palin and the Tea Baggers. You're doing a great job in promoting a progressive agenda, buddy.
Cheers.
I respect people who stand up for what they believe in.
Mr. K is not one of them.
He's got nothing to lose by going out on a limb with this.
I can hear the dem leadership now: "It's just Little Dennis. Let him have his little dog & pony show. He's there when we need him. He's useful to us and he's harmless".
You're quite right, I'm not very good at supporting a "progressive agenda" at least one thats steeped in murder, warmongering, pillaging and generally not having the nads to stand for anything.
And everyone knows now DK is just a toady.
Stand-up or get out.
Black or white, huh? I guess that would classify you as one or the other too, eh? I'll put my money on black. Your comment is that of an angry child in the school yard based on nothing but misdirected anger and just plain stupid!
So says Little moonpie. Someday he/she may grow up.
Cheers
Yes he is. Which brings us to the next good question: Why is Dennis Kucinich still a Democrat?
Time to start thinking about getting Dennis out of there. Maybe we should storm the chambers in a rescue attempt!
The members of the U.S. Congress who are capable of contemplation and honest discernment can be counted on one hand. The U.S. is consumed with blind madness.
The members of the US Congress who give a flying (bleep) about "honest discernment," the constitution, the welfare of the people of the US, or the welfare of the people of the world can be counted on one hand.
On one finger. (Guess which one?)
Many progressive and long-time Kucinich supporters, including me, have condemned Dennis for his apparent "sell-out" in voting for a health care "reform" bill that he had opposed. However distasteful as was the style of that capitulation, which he framed as a necessity to "save" the Obama presidency which, arguably, doesn't deserve to be saved, there was a modicum of excuse in the sense that it would allegedly supply SOME relief for millions of Americans. In the case of opposition to torture and assassinations, there is no possible extenuating such circumstance, and he has very properly taken a position that is high defensible on pragmatic as well as principled grounds. Why can no other (or few very other) of our elected "representatives" see the situation as clearly and fortrightly as does Kucinich? Of course the Lucy and the football imagery of a trusted associate who will pull away the ball at the moment you are about to kick it lingers around DK, but I for one am willing to hold that ball for "one more time" as it's the only game in the town of Congress, although it is being played out by candidates for Congress, Green Party and otherwise, across the country. We all need to encourage those righteous and courageous individuals, who clearly deserve any trust that we can place in them. It appears that if we go to the halls of Congress to look for that trust, we're looking in "all the wrong place," how about we look in some new places?
There's more than enough to begin impeachment proceedings against Obama.
Torture is allegedly taking place in Bagram. This needs to be investigated fully.
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0415/afghans-abused-secret-jail-bagram/
"There's more than enough to begin impeachment proceedings against Obama."
University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle is preparing a complaint against Barack Obama and his secret renditions program, which is to be filed with the International Criminal Court. Boyle filed one against Bush and others a few months ago.
If you don't know who Boyle is, look him up. He's an expert in international and US constitutional law, has a long history of aiding and defending war resisters, Ehren Watada for one.
sorry, but the ICC has no jurisdiction in the USofA.
junior saw to that back in the early days of his residency.
Good for Dennis Kucinich. However, the way he frames the issue still serves the establishment.
For example, he says, "I can't account for what anyone else doesn't do." This is disingenuous. Of course, he can account for it. We can all account for it, and it is a major part of the problem.
"With all the smart people that are in that administration, they've got to know the risks that they're taking here with violations of law," he says.
"Risks"? Is that the best he can do? Extra judicial murder is a crime, not simply a risk (and a risk, we may ask, to what, or are we to come to our own conclusions?)
Kucinich sez: "With all the smart people that are in that administration, they've got to know the risks that they're taking here with violations of law."
***
That's the line that stopped me, as well.
As the gatekeepers of the evidence against the previous administration's crimes, they know there is no risk whatsoever. Rule of law no longer applies to the rulers.
"I don't support it--period," he said in an interview."
Don't worry. When it's time for a vote DK will come down on the side of the extrajudicial killers.
He has lost all credibility with his pro vote on the health care insurance company enrichment bill ("I don't support it--period," he said in an interview.").
Maybe the next time a UFO shows up, he'll take a ride. See ya, Dennis. You talked a good game for awhile.
Grow up!
No kidding! I can't believe what a pompous group of critics hangs around CD these days. Nothing is good enough for this bunch as they sit around studying their assholes. They are so politically backwards it's scary. This is the "progressive" representatives of the USA? Gawd help the USA.
Cheers.
Another apologist for Democrats and Kucinich. God help indeed.
I wouldn't put it quite the same way, but I agree - if progressive people think bashing every decent politician and refusing to give constructive comments is the way to go forward, I'm afraid they are lost.
If nothing is good enough and you want to put the greatest set of cynical comments possible on these forums, that's your choice. But I know people who are sick of reading Common Dreams comments nowdays because it's got so much meaningless cynicism and sarcasm. Bashing decent leaders is a quick way to destroy any chance for unity.
We don't realize how difficult it is for some really well-intentioned representatives to change the system entirely right now. I'm all for many of the general stances we all talk about - peace, justice, truth, and honest media - but let's use some tact and keep composure. There's an art to critical analysis.
Cygnus: Agreed, there's plenty of evidence of impeachable offenses, but who's going to do the job? It takes a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate to impeach and then convict. Apart from Kucinich (or maybe not apart from him) what Democrat in the House will vote for it? Of course many GOP members would, but on their own agenda of "bringing down" Obama, and they have no where near the number of members in either house. I go back to my point above: we MUST get some people other than Ds and Rs in the Congress to make it responsive to the needs of the American people.
"I go back to my point above: we MUST get some people other than Ds and Rs in the Congress to make it responsive to the needs of the American people."
And, if we can ever make that happen we have to push them hard on term limits and ending contributions to campaigns by lobbyists before they inevitably succumb to the money and corruption themselves.
Terms limits is not the problem - it's a bogus band-aid. The problem is the influence of money. The solution is publicly(taxpayer)-financed elections and big-time, fat, nice federal government control of federal elections - from the election machines to air/internet time to you name it. Americans confuse the ability to give to whatever political cause or candidate they want with free speech.
I'm only stating that the evidence for impeachment is there for anyone willing to look. I'm not saying the political will exists. The Republicans would gladly impeach Obama for being a closet Muslim or Socialist...not for extra-judicial murder or spying, which they approve, and cannot wait to do themselves once they regain the king's throne.
In addition to what others have mentioned on DK's traitorous move on health care and the way he frames his talks in a manner that isn't a threat to the establishment, Kucinich still shows symptoms of lack of progressive self-confidence and no intention of forging a team on dealing with this issue let alone the team confidence needed to defeat the reckless behavior of this administration on assassination policy. DK's progressive credentials remain damaged beyond repair until he can prove otherwise.
Remember that he almost killed himself in '03-'04, spending every hour Nature sent on the campaign trail, trying to get people to understand that "we won" doesn't mean a damned thing if all we "win" is more years of business-as-usual. His speech and questions session out in Oakland was unforgetable.
And what did he get from us? Progressives working the streets every evening and weekend? Nope. Tons of money? Nope. Anything useful? Nope. We sat on our asses and hoped for a miracle.
Small blame to him for not wanting to trust us again.
If we got off our rear ends and started pulling something together, I feel quite sure he'd be there for us once it looked real. But we're not going to do that, because it's easier to "hope" than to work.
We agree on lots of things, Mairead, but not about Kucinich.
If I correctly recall your previous comments, you've been a long-time constituent going back to Kucinich's stint as mayor. Your considerable personal experience of Kucinich allows you to be more appreciative of him, and tolerant of his... flexibility.
Your experience tells you that the "real" problem isn't Kucinich, but the irresponsible and inferior constituency so quick to turn its back on him. Kucinich didn't betray the people, the people betrayed HIM.
Your defensive tone is reminiscent of a devoted older sister upset because the town turns on her brother after he commits some indiscretion, e.g. philandering, embezzling, a drunken rampage. If everybody ELSE knew all the things that poor man's done for others, and put up with over the years, they'd be ashamed of themselves! We're not fit to kiss his feet!
(BTW, pardon my somewhat circular metaphor, which isn't intended literally; I'm aware that those still loyal to Kucinich insist that he didn't do ANYTHING amounting to an "indiscretion", much less anything "wrong" to incur such disgust and disapprobation.)
I'm not trying to talk you out of standing on the porch and shaking your fist at all of us Pharisees who are so quick to cut dead this wonderful, wonderful man.
But even if your richer history and experience does make you wiser and "righter" about Kucinich, that experience doesn't obliterate my own. And in my experience, at least since Kucinich has been a NATIONAL figure, he's walked an ambiguous path between principled progressive vs. partisan flak-catcher and progressive Pied Piper.
His capitulation on the health insurance corporation bailout exposed the latter ignominious role in all its sordid details-- from his reneging on his own unequivocal statements to his sycophantic support for his party and president. Allowing himself to be pushed into the corner of that shameful "yes" was to affirm that business-as-usual rules.
Kucinich may have had a hard political life and been let down and betrayed by his own constituency. He seems to be a nice man, and it's nice that he'll still be around making Kucinich noises on important political issues. His e-mails soliciting funds for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) I could live without.
But he's a Judas goat for the Democratic Party, and for that reason is neither trustworthy nor inspiring.
Cheese Louise! I sure didn't communicate very well!
I've never been, and am unlikely ever to be, a constituent of his.
My connection, if you want to call it that, is that I researched his history when his '02 'Prayer for America' speech popped into view all over the left/progressive world.
What I saw in his history and record was a guy from a genuine, bottom-rung working-class background, not a faux one like Edwards's. He had grown up in poverty yet managed to keep his ideals, both of which I could relate to from my own life. He took on the Cleveland corporatocracy with a fang-and-claw vigor that had no precedent, earning himself the "Dennis the Menace" label. He made many errors, of course, but they were all the kind where he tried to do too much, not too little.
And, astonishingly, when it came to the crunch, he kept his pre-election promise and saved Muni Light. What other pol had ever done anything similar? None in recent times that I could discover. I had to go back to the '30s, to the socialists in Milwaukee and Huey Long in Louisiana, before I could find comparable integrity.
He had every reason to expect the people of Cleveland to back him up, but they didn't. The corporatocracy decided to get rid of him, mounted a big dezinformatsiya campaign against him, and the people believed those lies instead of their own eyes. Exit Dennis, stage left.
So he was on the shelf for 15 years, almost losing his sole significant asset: his house, which I seem to remember was assessed at around a whopping $27K. Public office did not make *him* wealthy.
So finally he got back into politics, bucked the Republican tide and was one of only 4 (I think it was) people nationwide to turf out a GOP incumbent, in his case a state senator. He did a good job, and got elected to Congress. Then the speech. Everybody went nuts! *Wonderful* speech, oh pleeeeze stand for president! So okay, he stood for president. And, once again, got his arse in a sling courtesy of We the Lazy.
Yeah, he endorsed The Empty Suit (who's now in bed with Lieberman, trashing the EPA). Yeah, his 2008 campaign was a placeholder. Yeah, he shouldn't have folded on this insurance giveaway. Yeah he shouldn't have kissed Obastard's ring. That was all self-protective BS, every bit of it, and unworthy of a man with integrity. So maybe he has no integrity left. Or maybe he's just learned that he can't count on us to watch his back.
What should he do? Leave the Dems? I can just see it: "Okay, I'll have another kick at the football. Surely the people whose part I've taken my whole life won't snatch it away again and land me on my arse a *third* time."
But on our record to date, we would.
I appreciate your response, and I DO accept that Kucinich may be pitied (as well as censured) for his political choices-- a tragic figure, and personally light-years ahead of the utterly self-serving monsters warming up the chairs around him.
Maybe he's managed to put himself in an impossible position.
I don't want to revisit the whole Kucinich story, both because it's too painful and exhausting, and also because I can't stand those long serve-and-volley subthreads on this primitive comments system that becomes like reading ticker tape! ;)
We will just have to disagree on assigning relative faith. You still seem to pitch Kucinich as generally acting in good faith, only to be shafted time and again by the (relative) bad faith of his constituency.
But over the years, there have been disaffected commenters here and elsewhere who at least claim to have taken Kucinich quite seriously, and supported him fanatically only to be disillusioned by ambivalent and half-hearted campaign operations and by his persistent reversion to rote partisanship when it counts.
I can't remember if you're a Dylan fan, but a poignant verse from "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues" (ahem) comes to mind:
"♪ I started out on burgundy
But soon hit the harder stuff
Everybody said they’d stand behind me
When the game got rough
But the joke was on me
There was nobody even there to bluff
I’m going back to New York City
I do believe I’ve had enough ♪"
Unless I'm still misreading you wildly, that verse seems to fit your perspective on Kucinich. I get that, but FWIW here's just one countervailing perspective from the opposite perspective that rings true to me:
Kucinich: Kerry's Bagman - BY PAUL D'AMATO
http://www.isreview.org/issues/37/kerry_bagman.shtml
I don't think I ever heard that Dylan song, but I lost track of him 40 years ago or thereabouts when he turned more commercial. From the part you quoted, though, I wouldn't say it reflects my view of Dennis, since the words seem to suggest someone who's giving up being pointlessly self-destructive rather than someone giving up being self-sacrificing (those two states seem different, to me).
I'll just admit, in closing on the subject (I hate this primitive software too), that it really could be that Dennis is, or has become, just another politician whose only calculus is whether what he does will benefit him. It really could be. I have no way at all to tell.
But all my training says that most (not all) people are more or less what we seem to be on the surface, and few of us change much in adulthood without a _lot_ of work. By the time we hit our late teens, we are pretty much who we'll be for the rest of our lives. We'll become more experienced, quicker, more polished - but the basic ways in which we see and relate to other people won't change.
So, on the whole --and maybe this is my "older sister" character in operation (I am indeed a first-born)-- I prefer to see him as someone trying to avoid punishment for trying to get us up off our butts rather than as someone repeatedly failing to live up to his promises.
We sit, feeling helpless to do anything for ourselves and unwilling even to try. Instead we expect someone like Dennis to metaphorically commit seppuku in the Capitol rotunda and call him a traitor when he won't.
That petulant, immobile viciousness must be the ruling class's greatest triumph.
Hahaha! Voting against health care reform is equivocated to political seppuku? Do you actually think his one vote would have stopped the bill? A trillion dollar give away to big business isn't going to be stopped by the likes of Kucinich. Furthermore, I don't think a drop of his political blood would have been spilled by a no vote. I think it points up to the ugly reality that guys like Kucinich are nothing more than metaphorical valves on pressure cookers. They give voice to all the crap going on in DC but when push comes to shove, they'll snap into line as fast as any blue dog. This is political wrestle mania and I find it amazing that so many Americans can't get their arms around it.
As for your petulant, immobile working class, all manner of protest permits have been pulled, much gnashing of teeth about bailouts for bankers and lack of health care. I know you have a solution lurking in your brain somewhere. Perhaps you should impart it on us?
"Do you actually think his one vote would have stopped the bill?"
Yes, because if he had voted no, then others who were bullied by him into voting yes would also have voted no.
If he wields that kind of power, hard to believe it would have been political seppuku. In either case, a laughable metaphor. But then, this is nuanced political hypocrisy and the filthy masses shouldn't try and understand it.
Look at the vote count in the House and it was very close at 219-212. Let's say he voted no. Then that would bring it to 218-213. Three more and the bill wouldn't have passed.
There are at least some of us out here who would have stayed true to him
- support, donations and all, if he had stayed true, so I don't think you
can use Cleveland's failure to re-elect him after the Muny affair as the
model for how others behave. You paint with far too broad a brush. As far
as getting his arse in a sling an his Pres. bids - again there were many who
defended, worked for, and donated to him - his "base" so to speak. Don't
know who "we the lazy" are, but if you are referring to those who didn't lift
a finger - do not suppose that they are the only ones who are expressing
critiques here. Perhaps he sat down after he felt betrayed, as you suggest.
But I, for one, felt profoundly betrayed after he sat down.
Even Stupak didn't sit down until he got something. You can argue that
Obama's "executive order" didn't amount to much, but, precisely what did
Kucinich get for sitting down? He threw his principles under the bus for what?
What, precisely did he get for it? I'd really like to know!
I don't think that you understand the powers and responsibilities of politicians vs the citizens. He can make a lot of great speeches but when push comes to shove, he always falls in line with the party even against our efforts for change for the better. I'll admit that in 2004 I didn't bother to vote in the primaries and guess why? IA and NH ! Dennis Kucinich has the special powers and influence that we lack to change that but does he ever bring it up? No ! Tens of thousands of people in his own district tried to convince him not to concede to Obamacare but what did he do? He fell apart and conceded but CROSSED THE LINE and joined Obama in bullying members of his own party in support of this regressive scam on health care thereby invalidating all of his supposed support on single payer. But he can count on us to just blame each other, forget his sins, and look the other way while he continues his 15 minute of fame HEEHAW CIRCUS CLOWN moments and join the rest of the country club in making asses out of us and joining the hooligans who voted to throw us to the corporate wolves !!
his job is to say these things so people can say someone said them...make people who agree feel better...
'this is wrong'...
no effect, but the words are said...his job is done...
like television, the point is to keep you tuned in, whatever...
now, we can discuss whether it really is wrong or not, and why no one else says so, and what others do say, etc...
discuss discuss discuss...
meanwhile, the chemicals flow and the drones get built and deployed...
"In the real world, things don't work out quite so neatly as they seem to in the heads of the CIA" Way to go Dennis!
Now, some criticism:"..but has received no response" Maybe if you get to ride on the plane again, you can ask about this instead of 'listening carefully, sitting quietly, and taking notes' like you did last time...
This is playing right into the hands of the Ghost of Osama.
Obama has become one of the Men Who Stare at Ghosts and this is the master minds way of hypnotizing our entire military and most of the public.
The psyops "war of perception" is now perceived by a growing majority of world opinion to be the greatest threat to our security.
New war has no rules anymore.... It is a psyco nightmare on the minds of the people.
All these terrorism leader guys really want is a big trial where they can defend themselves.... they are political animals with a cause but instead of using their pride as a weakness in order to find out anything true, we terrorize ourselves with more blow-back.
That is why our war and fear monger politicians are afraid of them having any rights.
This War of Staring at Ghosts is now 50 percent of the Budget and growin.
Maybe the Tea Party has a plan.
Kucinich is full of sh*t. Sorry but there's no other way to address this guy without using curse words anymore. This is just more political theater. Talk is cheap. At the end he always supports Obama like he did with his corrupt health care vote. Like he does each time he supports a pro-war corporatist Democrat for president (2000 or 2004 or 2008). He has absolutely no credibility, he talks a good game so the fools keep thinking there's any type of hope for the corrupt Democratic Party. That's his sole purpose.
I've said repeatedly that the only way one should take him seriously is if he resigned and ran as an Independent, exposing Obama for the war criminal, anti-labor, anti-change, pro-corporatist Uncle Tom that he is.
If he runs independent, I have a song ready.
And yet he's still the best progressive in the government.
He's a liberal, not a progressive. Liberals are useless, liars. They talk from both sides of their mouths, like DK did with his health care fraudulent vote.
Independent like who? Bernard Sanders or a real independent like Nader and Mckinney?
Now, if Dennis REALLY really was the real deal, this is exactly what he'd do.
He'd never do it, cuz he's a fake.
He'll probably retire soon anyway.
-Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich. "I don't support it--period,"
But of course he does support it. Kucinich gives his support to the people doing the assassinations, Obama and his Democrats, whenever they need it. Then he makes pointless statements like the one above.