Obama Argues His Assassination Program Is A "State Secret"
Pepe Silvia
Posts: 3,758
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e26460.htm
Obama Argues His Assassination Program Is A "State Secret"
By Glenn Greenwald
September 26, 2010 "Salon" -- 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.
Having debated him before, I genuinely didn't think it was possible for any President to concoct an assertion of executive power and secrecy that would be excessive and alarming to David Rivkin, but Barack Obama managed to do that, too. Obama's now asserting a power so radical -- the right to kill American citizens and do so in total secrecy, beyond even the reach of the courts -- that it's "too harsh even for" one of the most far-right War on Terror cheerleading-lawyers in the nation. But that power is certainly not "too harsh" for the kind-hearted Constitutional Scholar we elected as President, nor for his hordes of all-justifying supporters soon to place themselves to the right of David Rivkin as they explain why this is all perfectly justified. One other thing, as always: vote Democrat, because the Republicans are scary!
* * * * *
The same Post article 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." But he's not been charged with any crimes, let alone indicted for any. The President has been trying to kill him for the entire year without any of that due process. And now the President refuses even to account to an American court for those efforts to kill this American citizen on the ground that the President's unilateral imposition of the death penalty is a "state secret." And, indeed, American courts -- at Obama's urging -- have been upholding that sort of a "state secrecy" claim even when it comes to war crimes such as torture and rendition. Does that sound like a political system to which any sane, rational person would "surrender"?
Marcy Wheeler has more on other aspects of the DOJ's arguments, and I'll have more tomorrow as well.
UPDATE: As a reminder: 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. All they know is that Obama has issued these accusations, which is good enough for them. That's the authoritarian mind, by definition: if the Leader accuses a fellow citizen of something, then it's true -- no trial or any due process at all is needed and there is no need even for judicial review before the decreed sentence is meted out, even when the sentence is death.
For those reciting the "Awlaki-is-a-traitor" mantra, there's also the apparently irrelevant matter that Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution (the document which these same Obama supporters pretended to care about during the Bush years) provides that "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Treason is a crime that the Constitution specifically requires be proven with due process in court, not by unilateral presidential decree. And that's to say nothing of the fact that the same document -- the Constitution -- expressly forbids the deprivation of life "without due process of law." This one sentence from the Post article nicely summarizes the state of Obama's civil liberties record:
The Obama administration has cited the state-secrets argument in at least three cases since taking office - in defense of Bush-era warrantless wiretapping, surveillance of an Islamic charity, and the torture and rendition of CIA prisoners.
And now, in this case, Obama uses this secrecy and immunity weapon not to shield Bush lawlessness from judicial review, but his own.
Obama Argues His Assassination Program Is A "State Secret"
By Glenn Greenwald
September 26, 2010 "Salon" -- 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.
Having debated him before, I genuinely didn't think it was possible for any President to concoct an assertion of executive power and secrecy that would be excessive and alarming to David Rivkin, but Barack Obama managed to do that, too. Obama's now asserting a power so radical -- the right to kill American citizens and do so in total secrecy, beyond even the reach of the courts -- that it's "too harsh even for" one of the most far-right War on Terror cheerleading-lawyers in the nation. But that power is certainly not "too harsh" for the kind-hearted Constitutional Scholar we elected as President, nor for his hordes of all-justifying supporters soon to place themselves to the right of David Rivkin as they explain why this is all perfectly justified. One other thing, as always: vote Democrat, because the Republicans are scary!
* * * * *
The same Post article 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." But he's not been charged with any crimes, let alone indicted for any. The President has been trying to kill him for the entire year without any of that due process. And now the President refuses even to account to an American court for those efforts to kill this American citizen on the ground that the President's unilateral imposition of the death penalty is a "state secret." And, indeed, American courts -- at Obama's urging -- have been upholding that sort of a "state secrecy" claim even when it comes to war crimes such as torture and rendition. Does that sound like a political system to which any sane, rational person would "surrender"?
Marcy Wheeler has more on other aspects of the DOJ's arguments, and I'll have more tomorrow as well.
UPDATE: As a reminder: 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. All they know is that Obama has issued these accusations, which is good enough for them. That's the authoritarian mind, by definition: if the Leader accuses a fellow citizen of something, then it's true -- no trial or any due process at all is needed and there is no need even for judicial review before the decreed sentence is meted out, even when the sentence is death.
For those reciting the "Awlaki-is-a-traitor" mantra, there's also the apparently irrelevant matter that Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution (the document which these same Obama supporters pretended to care about during the Bush years) provides that "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Treason is a crime that the Constitution specifically requires be proven with due process in court, not by unilateral presidential decree. And that's to say nothing of the fact that the same document -- the Constitution -- expressly forbids the deprivation of life "without due process of law." This one sentence from the Post article nicely summarizes the state of Obama's civil liberties record:
The Obama administration has cited the state-secrets argument in at least three cases since taking office - in defense of Bush-era warrantless wiretapping, surveillance of an Islamic charity, and the torture and rendition of CIA prisoners.
And now, in this case, Obama uses this secrecy and immunity weapon not to shield Bush lawlessness from judicial review, but his own.
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
* * * * *
Godfather.
It's super oogey when they are citizens of your own country.
Obama sure is doing a number on his own popularity.
He already shot his credibility in the foot (or face, i'd argue), why not go ahead and kill his voter base too?
What a goof.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
No - Cheney is the one who shoots people in the face.
baddump-tump!
(rimshot)
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i bet their won't be a shortage of people supporting him next election
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
just thinking (inner voice) but does that make it o.k ?
ya know what come to think of it.....most maybe all of the people killed in a situation such as this uselly set them selfs up for what they have received by becoming involved in a life style they know can turn bad, a old friend of mine used to say " if you wanna be known as a crook then hang out with crooks". and then you will get what crooks deserve.....right ?
Godfather.
oh i see so its guilt by association then is it? superfantastic! :roll:
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
in some cases yes.....if someone is going to play the game they better know the rules.
in a bank robbery the get-a-way driver goes to prison too.....right ?
Godfather.
Godfather.
Gotcha. :crazy:
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
you have got to be kidding right ??? wtf ? did I say get rid of due process ??? :crazy: :crazy:
Godfather.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"most maybe all of the people killed in a situation such as this usually set them selfs up for what they have received by becoming involved in a life style they know can turn bad"
I said nothing about due process..that comes after.
like said earlier if a person involves them self in something dangerous even just stepping slightly in that circle they set them selfs up for the consequences that are in that circle, for instance if you admire the biker life but don't have the balls to be a biker and befriend a real biker and hang around with him and his friends go for rides parties etc. and a bust comes down on your new friend while you are with him or another club trys to hurt him and your there...guess what.. you just went jail or got your ass beat or worse because YOU put your self in that circle, then you'll be late for work on Monday.
that's all I was saying.
Godfather.
:?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
you're saying that your not smart enough to know better ? so yes by all means it's your fault, do you remember the old saying "if you play with fire you'er going to get burned".
Godfather.
ouch...I respectfully back down on this topic.
Godfather.
so now its in some cases''... make up your mind godfather. just cause my brother is a criminal doesnt mean i am too.
and a getaway driver is part of the robbery so your analogy is flawed.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
your analogy makes absolutely no sense in the real world, GF.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
~Everyone has to give Moses $5.~
you might be right tho
how it really is,those are the facts there is nothing made up about what I have posted.
Godfather.
you may never know and thats good but should the time come and you find your self in trouble just by a simple
case of guilt by association then you will understand.
also there you go attacking my faith some of you people on this forum just amaze me...if thats all you have to come back at me with then inside you know I am right in what I have stated.BTW a quick question: if your brother (the gang banger) asked you to hold his gun and all the sudden a bust happens..would you say "it's not mine ..it's my brothers or would you say it's mine and go to jail for your brother ? ...just curious.
Godfather.
Godfather.
answer: C: none of the above. I wouldn't ever hold his gun for him. I never have, and I never would.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
do you have faith(believe in God) , serious question I am just wondering and not looking for argument.
Godfather.
you have changed my post,I never said just "SITTING NEXT TO A CRIMINAL" .
Godfather.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014