Obama's Kill Policy

Obama's Kill Policy

Postby Peace Takes Strength » Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:32 pm

ForeignPolicy.com
March 6, 2012

Obama's Kill Policy

Trust us, Attorney General Eric Holder says -- we'll only assassinate Americans after administrative 'due process.' That's not how the Constitution works, buddy.

By Jonathan Turley

On Monday, March 5, Northwestern University School of Law was the location of an extraordinary scene for a free nation. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder presented President Barack Obama's claim that he has the authority to kill any U.S. citizen he considers a threat. :shock: It served as a retroactive justification for the slaying of American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki last September by a drone strike in northeastern Yemen, as well as the targeted killings of at least two other Americans during Obama's term.

What's even more extraordinary is that this claim, which would be viewed by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution as the very definition of authoritarian power, was met not with outcry but muted applause. Where due process once resided, Holder offered only an assurance that the president would kill citizens with care. While that certainly relieved any concern that Obama, or his successor, would hunt citizens for sport, Holder offered no assurances on how this power would be used in the future beyond the now all-too-familiar "trust us" approach to civil liberties of this administration.

In his speech, Holder was clear and unambiguous on only one point: "The president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war -- even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen." The use of the word "abroad" is interesting because senior administration officials have previously asserted that the president may kill an American anywhere and anytime, including within the United States. Holder's speech does not materially limit that claimed authority, but stressed that "our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan." He might as well have stopped at "limited" because the administration has refused to accept any limitations on this claimed inherent power.

Holder became highly cryptic in his assurance that caution would be used in exercising this power -- suggesting some limitation that is both indefinable and unreviewable. He promised that the administration would kill Americans only with "the consent of the nation involved or after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States." He did not explain how the nation in question would consent or how a determination would be made that it is "unable or unwilling to deal" with the threat.

Of course, the citizens of the United States once consented on a relevant principle when they ratified the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights. They consented to a government of limited powers where citizens are entitled to the full protections of due process against allegations by their government. That is clearly not the type of consent that Holder wants to revisit or discuss. Indeed, he insisted that "a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to 'due process.'"

Holder's new definition of "due process" was perfectly Orwellian. While the Framers wanted an objective basis for due process, Holder was offering little more than "we will give the process that we consider due to a target." And even the vaguely described "due process" claimed by Holder was not stated as required, but rather granted, by the president. Three citizens have been given their due during the Obama administration and vaporized by presidential order. Frankly, few of us mourn their passing. However, due process appears to have been vaporized in the same moment -- something many U.S. citizens may come to miss.

What Holder is describing is a model of an imperial presidency that would have made Richard Nixon blush. If the president can kill a citizen, there are a host of other powers that fall short of killing that the president might claim, including indefinite detention of citizens -- another recent controversy. Thus, by asserting the right to kill citizens without charge or judicial review, Holder has effectively made all of the Constitution's individual protections of accused persons matters of presidential discretion. These rights will be faithfully observed up to the point that the president concludes that they interfere with his view of how best to protect the country -- or his willingness to wait for "justice" to be done. And if Awlaki's fate is any indication, there will be no opportunity for much objection.

Already, the administration has successfully blocked efforts of citizens to gain review of such national security powers or orders. Not only is the list of citizens targeted with death kept secret, but the administration has insisted that courts do not play a role in the creation of or basis for such a list. Even when Awlaki's family tried to challenge Obama's kill order, the federal court declared that the cleric would have to file for himself -- a difficult task when you are on a presidential hit list. Moreover, any attorney working with Awlaki would have risked being charged with aiding a terrorist.

When the applause died down after Holder's speech, we were left with a bizarre notion of government. We have this elaborate system of courts and rights governing the prosecution and punishment of citizens. However, that entire system can be circumvented at the whim or will of the president. The president then becomes effectively the lawgiver or lifetaker for all citizens. The rest becomes a mere pretense of the rule of law.

Holder was describing the very model of government the Framers denounced in crafting both the Constitution and Bill of Rights. James Madison in particular warned that citizens should not rely on the good graces and good intentions of their leaders. He noted, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." The administration appears to have taken the quote literally as an invitation for unlimited authority for angels.

Of course, even those who hold an angelic view of Obama today may come to find the next president less divine. In the end, those guardian angels will continue to claim to be acting in the best interests of every citizen -- with the exception, of course, of those citizens killed by them.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.

http://ebird.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20120307874112.html

Obama, change you can believe in
"This is following through not just on a commitment I made during the campaign (Closing GITMO) but an understanding that dates back to our Founding Fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct — not just when it's easy but also when it's hard,"--Obama

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."--Obama
User avatar
Peace Takes Strength
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:49 am
Location: Standing on the wall protecting those I care about from harm

Re: Obama's Kill Policy

Postby hwmnbn » Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:53 pm

This policy is total bullshit. It's unacceptable. The legal "reasoning" is as flawed as anything John Yoo could have pulled out his ass.

Sadly, even if this policy is challenged in court, the current make-up of the Supreme Court means it is certain to ultimately be upheld. We've already gone way down the slippery slope toward an imperial presidency.
"I drank WHAT?!?"

-Socrates-
User avatar
hwmnbn
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:02 am
Location: beyond rhyme or reason
Role: a drifter, the prime suspect with a perfect alibi

Re: Obama's Kill Policy

Postby English Nick » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:24 pm

hwmnbn wrote:Sadly, even if this policy is challenged in court, the current make-up of the Supreme Court means it is certain to ultimately be upheld.

Yes, but probably not until a Republican is in power.
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” - Noam Chomsky
User avatar
English Nick
Moderator
 
Posts: 5847
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Wessex
Role: Royal pain in the arse

Re: Obama's Kill Policy

Postby cyntino » Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:13 am

hwmnbn wrote:This policy is total bullshit. It's unacceptable. The legal "reasoning" is as flawed as anything John Yoo could have pulled out his ass.

Sadly, even if this policy is challenged in court, the current make-up of the Supreme Court means it is certain to ultimately be upheld. We've already gone way down the slippery slope toward an imperial presidency.


I support Obama on this issue. People who disagree are more than welcome to go to Yemen and Pakistan and arrest the American al-Qaeda members.
"When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning and losing are equal"-Sun Tzu
User avatar
cyntino
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:03 pm
Role: PTC's Favorite Antagonist

Re: Obama's Kill Policy

Postby Peacemonger » Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:37 pm

cyntino wrote:
hwmnbn wrote:This policy is total bullshit. It's unacceptable. The legal "reasoning" is as flawed as anything John Yoo could have pulled out his ass.

Sadly, even if this policy is challenged in court, the current make-up of the Supreme Court means it is certain to ultimately be upheld. We've already gone way down the slippery slope toward an imperial presidency.


I support Obama on this issue. People who disagree are more than welcome to go to Yemen and Pakistan and arrest the American al-Qaeda members.


Altough it has been quite a while since I have posted on this forum, if I remember correctly, Cyntino, you also supported dictatorial tyrannical powers for the Cheny/Bush administration. So the only thing your support for Obama on this issue proves is that at least you are not a hypocrite! Which is more than I can say for many of Obama's supporters who vehemenly opposed Cheny (...I mean Bush) when that administration was running amok but now support the same policies being implemented by their "democrat" president.
A fool learns from experience, a wise man learns from history.
User avatar
Peacemonger
 
Posts: 722
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:27 pm
Location: 1,773 km north of Mexico, 200 m east of Pacific, 5,676 km west of Atlantic, 615 km south of Canada

Re: Obama's Kill Policy

Postby cyntino » Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:13 am

Peacemonger wrote:
cyntino wrote:
hwmnbn wrote:This policy is total bullshit. It's unacceptable. The legal "reasoning" is as flawed as anything John Yoo could have pulled out his ass.

Sadly, even if this policy is challenged in court, the current make-up of the Supreme Court means it is certain to ultimately be upheld. We've already gone way down the slippery slope toward an imperial presidency.


I support Obama on this issue. People who disagree are more than welcome to go to Yemen and Pakistan and arrest the American al-Qaeda members.


Altough it has been quite a while since I have posted on this forum, if I remember correctly, Cyntino, you also supported dictatorial tyrannical powers for the Cheny/Bush administration. So the only thing your support for Obama on this issue proves is that at least you are not a hypocrite! Which is more than I can say for many of Obama's supporters who vehemenly opposed Cheny (...I mean Bush) when that administration was running amok but now support the same policies being implemented by their "democrat" president.


It's been forever since I posted here too but I do respect you for criticizing bush AND Obama. You are not a hypocrite either.
"When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning and losing are equal"-Sun Tzu
User avatar
cyntino
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:03 pm
Role: PTC's Favorite Antagonist

Re: Obama's Kill Policy

Postby Peacemonger » Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:09 pm

cyntino wrote:It's been forever since I posted here too but I do respect you for criticizing bush AND Obama. You are not a hypocrite either.
Well at least we have that trait in common. Probably not much else though. :wink2:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my assumption is that you probably agree with the people who think Edward Snowden is a traitor rather than a hero. (I know this is off-topic, but there seems be to only you and I here anyway, so it probably doesn't matter all that much.) In any case, I am interested in hearing your opinions on the Prism caper. I doubt we share the same opinion, but I have come to realize that one can often learn more from people we disagree with than those whom we agree with.
A fool learns from experience, a wise man learns from history.
User avatar
Peacemonger
 
Posts: 722
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:27 pm
Location: 1,773 km north of Mexico, 200 m east of Pacific, 5,676 km west of Atlantic, 615 km south of Canada


Return to Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron