Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Argues His Assassination Program is a "State Secret"
At this point, I didn't believe it was possible, but the Obama administration has just reached an all-new low in its abysmal civil liberties record. In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.
A very intense case of food poisoning in New York on Thursday, combined with my traveling home all night last night, prevents me from writing much about this until tomorrow (and it's what rendered the blog uncharacteristically silent for the last two days). But I would hope that nobody needs me or anyone else to explain why this assertion of power is so pernicious -- at least as pernicious as any power asserted during the Bush/Cheney years. If the President has the power to order American citizens killed with no due process, and to do so in such complete secrecy that no courts can even review his decisions, then what doesn't he have the power to do? Just for the moment, I'll note that The New York Times' Charlie Savage, two weeks ago,wrote about the possibility that Obama might raise this argument, and quoted the far-right, Bush-supporting, executive-power-revering lawyer David Rivkin as follows:
The government's increasing use of the state secrets doctrine to shield its actions from judicial review has been contentious. Some officials have argued that invoking it in the Awlaki matter, about which so much is already public, would risk a backlash. David Rivkin, a lawyer in the White House of President George H. W. Bush, echoed that concern.
"I'm a huge fan of executive power, but if someone came up to you and said the government wants to target you and you can't even talk about it in court to try to stop it, that's too harsh even for me," he said.
Read the rest of the article at Salon...
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...
167 Comments so far
Show Allthis is the ultimate public blackmail by the global fascist overlords.
their vast machinery, military or otherwise, achieves its maximum efficacy through its known but "secret" capabilities and willingness.
of course the question of who's on their hit list has to be left unanswered.
it's been working perfectly, as designed.
and it will get even better at it with further technological innovations.
Mr. Greenwald, might it not be poison in your food rather than food poisoning. I believe you may have been a little to honest for these times. Stay out of small planes.
Vote third party and party as OilyBomber gets impeached.
Although there are many other reasons to dump Obama from politics, this, to me, stands head and shoulders above the rest. I cannot and I will not vote for a murderer, or anyone from his party, or anyone from the other party of murderers.
I agree, but voting or not, it won't stop these people.
I don't know how they can be stopped from being the threat to humanity that they so obviously are, but if they're aren't, woe is the world.
RIGHT you are!!!!!
But Michelle Obama is so sweet and sincere, and so is her basketball coach brother, and they both adore Barak so much. How can he possibly be a murderer or terrorist?
And has her brother ever mentioned he is 6'8" tall? Yes, several times in an interview I heard. He also talked about how Michelle's father had asked him (the brother) to play basketball with Barak while he and Michelle were dating in order to judge Barak's character. The brother evidently found that cutesy-poo sportsy-sport story very charming. I call foul.
Joe
FastEddie75 September 26th, 2010 11:56 am -- Well put. Why aren't millions of people saying this?
It's good to see Barracks Obomber enjoying the perks of office.
One of the worst aspects of this is that the U.S. kills indiscriminately pretty much every day and the vast majority of people do not give it any thought because the people killed are not "citizens".
As a matter of fact, these illegal murders are a source of pride for many (if not most) people in the United States of Global Domination.
I agree on the daily killing machine part. On the other point, I don't see people acknowledging the violence in the first place. The corporate-owned press is there to give an excuse if it starts to become apparent. I think people are snowed, but it's a light snow. They can see through it if they want to look, but they don't want to do that. It's kind of hard to understand. It's inexcusable, too.
-TIA
Thank you CD for posting this. While no surprise, friendly reminders of who are really dangerous are very helpful. Unfortunately, it could be possible that in 2 years, enough of the already gullible American public will view this as "moderate" should the GOP be successful in nominating a fringe lunatic of their own. Either way, we lose big. :(
There's no need to wait for the next election. I've spoken to several acquaintances about this, all of whom are liberals and all or most of whom are Obama supporters, and with one exception, they uniformly consider Obama's assassination policy to be reasonable and moderate.
I don't believe you. Are you channeling the ghost of the John Mitchell who corrupted the Justice Department from the top during the Nixon Watergate scandal White House years?
What sort of "liberals.....all or most of whom are Obama supporters" are you acquainted with? I hang out with all sorts of liberals and folks who worked and voted for Barack in 2008. Not one - not a single one - of my liberal or Democratic Party leaning acquaintences considers Obama's assassination policy to be reasonable or moderate. They uniformly consider it disappointing or appalling - yet another example of an awful Bush/Cheney policy that has been continued by the DLC inner circle Oval Office braintrust rather than changed.
Bill from Saginaw
Actually, like the war in Afghanistan, it's been escalated: the Obama administration is using arguments Bush's cronies never dared to.
Thanks for posting this great reply. All I could do was sputter!
I would agree - "liberal" Dims don't care what atrocities Obama carries out. They'll still love him and vote for him again. That's because he's not "conservative" or Republican. And because he said, "Oh yes we can!" What else does he need to do? He's their guy!
Are you kidding? The same "liberals" who harangued against Bush defend Obama's policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and defend the deadly drone attacks which are as much murder as assassination plots.
Yes.
Hi Jennifer,
I was banned from CD back in January for saying 'negative things' about the people in my home state because I eschew their war loving attitude. I'll be more discrete in the future. My old handle was AGG.
Hi to Siouxrose too. I have continued to read the site and noticed that Thomas Moore must have morphed into mightymite. This guy is relentlessly partisan.
As to the subject on this thread, I highly recommend this site ( http://www.corbettreport.com/d ) with downloadable mp3 reports with details, names and dates. This guy is an english teacher in Japan from Canada. He is honest, thorough and very intelligent. I recommend that RichM and obedient servant check him out too. I think he is for real, as are all those I mentioned with the exception of mickeymouse (deliberate misspelling).
The latest Corbett Report entitled "Media Kills" is great.
Welcome back, revenant agelbert, and thanks for the tip.
You are very welcome, sir.
Oh, AGG? For a minute there, I thought you were K.P.
Agelbert, welcome back and I am happy and pleased to see you again. I am sorry to hear what happened to you. Ric Abreau told me something similar on Alternet. I usually don't bother with that site given their more filthy articles as if the "vote Democrat or it's the end of the world" ones weren't bad enough but there are a few great people still there to talk to. I wasn't here the first three months of this year except for one weekend in February when I had access to a computer and decided to check back on my mail. I had been out of this bloody country to get to see what life was like in other nations. I visited a few of them and stayed for a while with some help from my relatives there who I had never met in my entire life. I loved it and was more determined to get back home and apply what I had learned sort of. I didn't mind being away from the Internet throughout my journey. Sioux Rose is still around and I like her posts as always. My uncle is around too and he has changed a lot especially after that health care bill that passed.
Yes, you are right about mightymite. He can be ok but when he trashes Europe and makes it look like it is going the way of the USA and will become individualist and pro-military like this rotten nation, I often find myself debating him on it. I don't know if he is a partisan but while he too is sick of the Democrats selling us out as are we, he is falling into the two-party trap except that now he believes that new Republicans will change things for the better. He is ok on some issues but on some others, he can be like a glass in our eyes.
Thank you for information on Corbett Report. I will check it out.
Yes, and in that Update, Greenwald notes:
"Obama supporters who are dutifully insisting that the President not only has the right to order American citizens killed without due process, but to do so in total secrecy, on the ground that Awlaki is a Terrorist and Traitor, are embracing those accusations without having the slightest idea whether they're actually true."
If it was George W. Bush claiming the right to order American citizens assassinated without due process and in total secrecy because they are terrorists, these same Obama supporters would be justifiably outraged and demanding that he be impeached or tried for war crimes. Why is it any less outrageous and criminal when it is Obama doing it? Why can't they see this? Is it too painful for them to acknowledge that they were duped? Or are they just blinded by their loyalty?
This is exactly why Obama is MORE dangerous than Bush: he can get away with things (reviving nuclear power? wide-open offshore drilling) that would have invoked a storm of protest if a Republican tried them.
It turns out that a lot of people are really just Democrats, not progressives. It's a right-wing party with progressive makeup, and a lot of people are loyal no matter how outrageous its actions.
"This is exactly why Obama is MORE dangerous than Bush" -- charlesthegreen
I agree with you -- and also RichM and Anne Faith!
Of course, I had serious concerns about Obama when he was campaigning -- and in the end, I just could NOT vote for him. I voted for Nader, but seriously considered voting for Cynthia McKinney.
I can hardly believe that a Glenn Greenwald article is published on CD.
For two weeks, we have been without Chris Hedges, and quite a number of readers and writers have openly written about this fact. Soon, it will be Monday AM -- will we find Chris Hedges on CD?
Just asking?!
Kay, I was having similar thoughts and wondered about the sudden change. I cannot predict how CD will issue its articles but my guess is that for every 1 good article, they will issue another 3 or 4 party apologist articles in various shades. For now, I cannot tell if CD is simply throwing us a bone or if the editors have actually seen the toxic spew of endless "vote Democrat or it's the end of the world" madness gone worse on other supposedly progressive sites. Stay tuned.
P.S.: I decided to revisit some of those other sites and they make even the apologists on this site look "nice" in pale comparison.
I think "throwing us a bone" is quite plausible.
The comments threads are this site's "Veal Pen".
The comments threads are this site's "Veal Pen". -- OS
Exactly!
After running into hell on those other sites, I hope that there is some way our comments and analysis can make it mainstream despite the odds.
P.S.: I came across the same John Nichols's article on Russ Feingold on one of the other supposedly progressive sites. Unfortunately, my take on Russ Feingold there had gotten me slammed as a "tea partier". One of those closed minded dunderheads had the nerve to say that we here at CD "share eternity with Lee Atwater" ! I hit him back calling him for his narrow minded thinking and inability to comprehend outside the two party duopoly. Overall, everyone there was begging that everyone donate to Feingold. The discussion was lame overall and I thought it was safe to be honest there after a while of missing it out there and seeing some good changes in public comments.
Well said. CD comments might even be a PR think tank training aid for prevaricators to test their mind f__k skills by setting up mock debates. As long as the comments here don't go mainstream, they are tolerated.
I'm an old friend and admirer of you and a few others here that 'go for the juggler', so to speak, in your analysis. I've been gone since January but I'm back to throw in my two cents now and then. Thanks for all you write here. My old handle was AGG.
Welcome back!
JenniferBedingfield September 26th, 2010 4:14 pm -- Any reason CD can't have an open forum section where progressives can alert others to important articles CD misses, or just comment on news?
I thought that this was an open forum. So far, I haven't gotten into trouble for posting links valid articles.
Thus far, I haven't had any problems, either. And, I do post links, referencing articles.
Kay Johnson and others: Sorry, I didn't make it clear; what I had in mind would resemble a "letters to the editor" column -- not comment threads related to articles chosen exclusively by CD. It would be partly to address complaints that CD doesn't run enough articles by people like Greenwald.
Thanks, manning120, for the clarification. I have NO idea if CD would be willing to set up a forum such as the one you suggest, but it is a good idea.
Obama has stepped off the deep end!
Sorry to disappoint you, but he was already there - well before he got into the Senate.
The hope you can believe in...that Obama, Holder and Anthony Coppolino can make themselves even more odious than David Rivkin. Can you believe it?
A note issued to the bearer reading "What has been done has been done for the good of the State" in the royal autograph is all the "due process" required in the Amerikan Imperium.
Greenwald:
...quotes a DOJ spokesman as saying that Awlaki "should surrender to American authorities and return to the United States, where he will be held accountable for his actions."
Surrender to American authorities for the crime of being shot while trying to escape?
Nice point, Michael F.
Once the head law enforcement officer publicly announces that the notorious boogerman so-and-so is "wanted dead or alive", a huge disincentive is immediately created for the suspect to ever surrender peacably to the forces of law and order.
Also, for the guys riding forth on the posse, dead is always a whole lot easier for all concerned than bringing him back alive.
Bill from Sagionaw
this has a counterpart, an analogy to US foreign policy, as in this example:
To IRAN:
"IRAN...yes YOU, IRAN..drop your resistance ....you must PROVE the NEGATIVE...PROVE to us that you are not about to make nuclear bombs....drop your guard or ELSE we are going to BOMB YOU...so drop your guard SO THAT we can BOMB YOU".
AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY.
"open your markets countries of the world...DROP your guard....so that we can RAPE YOU..or ELSE we Will RAPE YOU".....
Rapist to Victim:
"drop your skirt....or else I am going to remove it ....drop it so that I can rape you".
USA to Native Indians:
"drop your guard....drop your guard so that we can remove you from your land
US POLICY...OR ELSE....we are going to remove you from your land".
USA "golden Rule".
this is the Personality Disorder...American style.
Par for the Course.
Our PR con artists are the best paid liars in the world. A PR firm was paid over 10 million of our tax dollars by our government to cook up stuff on Sadam Hussein after the first gulf war. Remember all those National Guard JOIN THE GUARD! FREE EDUCATION AND A CAREER ads during the second half of the 90s? Gee, you'd think these folks were clairvoyant about all that 'trouble' we were going to have after 2000. These folks plan ahead.
Keep givin' 'em hell teddy. I thoroughly enjoy your comments.
Just so, Michael.
On the one hand, the Amerikan Imperium is pleased to conduct show trials based on blatantly manufactured and prextetual "crimes", for which draconian sentences are righteously pronounced after the foregone conclusion of a conviction.
Aafia Siddiqui's 86-year (life) sentence is the latest tragic example of this.
Yet, the US authorities proceed with a lethal combination of denial and cynicism to suggest that outlaws and fugitives surrender peacefully and submit to an ostensibly fair and impartial "rule of law".
I hope Awlaki's lawsuit cites the well-settled principle of common law famously bungled by Dubya: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!"
In my opinion (just an opinion), the Siddiqui thing is more bizarre and more outrageous even than Awlaki.
We haven't left the Middle ages yet and here's the proof. These assholes want the same power any divine right King or Roman Emperor had and they seem to think they can justify their murderous impulses the same way behind a cloak of secrecy.
Of course you are correct. The problem they always run into is the inescapable fact that power always comes from the masses who give an elite their legitimacy. The moment the legitimacy ends, the pirchforks and torches come out and the police take a vacation. The top dogs are painfully aware of that. Hence the constant and continual PR to convince us of how weak we, the people, are and how much we, the people, need the almighty, glorious, kindly, fatherly (and motherly too), grandpa Buffett types and sober Obama feel your (whatever) Clintonites to forever guide us through the travails of our democracy. And let us not forget to be grateful for those hardnosed, fiscally responsible republicans that are constantly on there guard to preserve taxpayer dollars for the people.....
RIGHT! Did you know there is a law passed during World War II that prohibited defense contractors from getting more thann 15% profit (or face prison and, thanks to Truman, many did) DURING WARTIME? Yep. It's still on the books. Could that have something to do with the fact that congress has lost the habit of declaring wars?
Nahhh. They wouldn't do that. Would they?