ACLU Not Exactly Cool With Obama Administration Assuming They Can Assassinate Americans

[bigtree]

from Spencer Ackerman at Washington Independent: http://washingtonindependent.com/75836/aclu-not-exactly-cool-with-obama-administration-assassinating-americans


2/4/10 4:20 PM

Apropos of intelligence chief Dennis Blair’s remarkable disclosure (http://washingtonindependent.com/75759/americans-assassinating-americans), the following statement comes from the American Civil Liberties Union’s Ben Wizner:

It is alarming to hear that the Obama administration is asserting that the president can authorize the assassination of Americans abroad, even if they are far from any battlefield and may have never taken up arms against the U.S., but have only been deemed to constitute an unspecified “threat.” This is the most recent consequence of a troublingly overbroad interpretation of Congress’s 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force. This sweeping interpretation envisions a war that knows no borders or definable time limits and targets an enemy that the government has refused to define in public. This policy is particularly troubling since it targets U.S. citizens, who retain their constitutional right to due process even when abroad.

His colleague Jonathan Manes wants to know more:

The American people have a right to know more about a policy that grants the president the unilateral authority to approve the killing of U.S. citizens. It is essential that more information be made available about who can be targeted for killing, who makes these decisions and on the basis of how much evidence, and whether lethal force can be used if arrest or capture are possible or have not been attempted. While there is little doubt that a U.S. citizen fighting for an enemy army could lawfully be killed on the battlefield in the course of fighting, this policy goes far beyond the ordinary parameters of battlefield combat. It appears to allow for the deliberate targeted killing of American citizens far away from any active hostilities, as long as the executive branch determines unilaterally that they meet a secret definition of who the enemy is.

read: http://washingtonindependent.com/75836/aclu-not-exactly-cool-with-obama-administration-assassinating-americans

related:

Intelligence Official Acknowledges Policy Allowing Targeted Killings Of Americans
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/intelligence-official-acknowledges-policy-allowing-targeted-killings-americans

Intelligence chief: US can kill Americans abroad
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/04/killing.americans/

[mzmolly]

1. The OP suggests that Obama has engaged in assassination.

Here is some clarification:

"Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged in a congressional hearing on Wednesday that the U.S. may, with executive approval, deliberately target and kill U.S. citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorism."

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/intelligence-official-acknowledges-policy-allowing-targeted-killings-americans

Hyperbole much? ;)

[sandnsea]

2. I hope it's more than "suspect"

They better know somebody is about to set off a bomb before they authorize an assassination.

[mzmolly]

18. At this point we don't know that the administration would authorize ANY

execution. The article surmises they "may". :eyes:

[Larkspur]

4. This violates Constitutional principles of due process and facing our accusers.

It's typical imperial mentality though.

Wonder when non-violent protest organizers will be listed to be executed too. Israel already lumps non-violent protest organizers and participants as terrorists, so wonder how long it will be before American Presidents do the same?

[elehhhhna]

9. the word is extrajudicial, iirc.

[mzmolly]

19. At present

the kerfuffle is speculative. I await more info.

[bigtree]

28. the danger of vesting assassination powers in the President

from Glenn Greenwald: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/02/04/assassinations/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+salon/greenwald+%28Glenn+Greenwald


"The severe dangers of vesting assassination powers in the President are so glaring that even GOP Rep. Pete Hoekstra is able to see them (at least he is now that there’s a Democratic President). At yesterday’s hearing, Hoekstra asked Adm. Blair about the threat that the President might order Americans killed due to their Constitutionally protected political speech rather than because they were actually engaged in Terrorism. This concern is not an abstract one. The current controversy has been triggered by the Obama administration’s attempt to kill U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. But al-Awlaki has not been accused (let alone convicted) of trying to attack Americans. Instead, he’s accused of being a so-called “radical cleric” who supports Al Qaeda and now provides “encouragement” to others to engage in attacks – a charge al-Awlaki’s family vehemently denies (al-Awlaki himself is in hiding due to fear that his own Government will assassinate him)."

"The question of where First Amendment-protected radical advocacy ends and criminality begins is exactly the sort of question with which courts have long grappled. In the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who — surrounded by hooded indivduals holding weapons — gave a speech threatening ”revengeance” against any government official who “continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race.” The Court held that the First Amendment protects advocacy of violence and revolution, and that the State is barred from punishing citizens for the expression of such views. The Brandenburg Court pointed to a long history of precedent protecting the First Amendment rights of Communists to call for revolution — even violent revolution — inside the U.S., and explained that the Government can punish someone for violent actions but not for speech that merely advocates or justifies violence (emphasis added):

As we (395 U.S. 444, 448) said in Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297 -298 (1961), “the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.” See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 259 -261 (1937); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 134 (1966). A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control.

From all appearances, al-Awlaki seems to believe that violence by Muslims against the U.S. is justified in retaliation for the violence the U.S. has long brought (and continues to bring) to the Muslim world. But as an American citizen, he has the absolute Constitutional right to express those views and not be punished for them (let alone killed) no matter where he is in the world; it’s far from clear that he has transgressed the advocacy line into violent action.

read more: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/02/04/assassinations/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+salon/greenwald+%28Glenn+Greenwald

[mzmolly]

34. I agree that this is a dangerous

road to travel, if indeed this administration is doing so. Again, I await more info.

[bigtree]

5. we should tiptoe around it, then, until it actually happens

. . . if it hasn't already.

. . . deliberately target and kill suspected Americans, with the president's approval. Is that explicit approval or the same assumption of approval because of some broad authorization that Bush assumed?

[Merciful1]

7. Murder Incorporated

... moved

[mzmolly]

20. Or, we should spread misinformation as if it IS happening

instead. :crazy:

[bigtree]

27. spread misinformation?

Hyperbole much? :D

[mzmolly]

35. To your credit

you did change the title. :hi:

[Ignis]

16. So "suspected" is a death sentence now? Oy. (nt)

[mzmolly]

21. Not according the the article

in the OP.

[Ignis]

23. Where's the due process in the quote you posted?

"Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged in a congressional hearing on Wednesday that the U.S. may, with executive approval, deliberately target and kill U.S. citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorism."

I don't see the words "arrested," "tried," "convicted," or "sentenced" anywhere in that quote.

What am I missing? :shrug:

[mzmolly]

25. The larger question at this point is where is the "executive approval."

I feel like I've stumbled upon a Glenn Beck forum.

[Ignis]

29. Are you trying to slyly call me a Freeper/Beck-bagger?

If not, my apologies, but I'm not getting your point. :shrug: I've made no claims that Obama is assassinating Americans :eyes: so that strawman won't hunt.

I don't understand how any American of any political stripe could support doing away with due process. I didn't understand it when Wingnuts wanted to kill/torture suspected Terra-rists on sight under Shrub, and I don't understand it now when we're hearing a similar policy proposed under our current administration.

Clarity would help your argument here.

[mzmolly]

33. The OP title was changed to more accurately

reflect the issue at hand. To clarify, I'm not calling you Beck-ish. :hi:

I don't support doing away with due process, I'm just not convinced that the President does.

[Ignis]

41. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm sure we can agree that hyperbole doesn't help us move any discussion forward.

[Solly Mack]

3. k/r

[RedCloud]

6. If he assassinates corporations, will they bleed?

[elehhhhna]

8. we are one of the few nations who allow the state to take our lives

via the death penalty and, in the past thru the military draft. Once the state has the power to kill the people, it'll find a way to use it.

[Better Believe It]

10. So if the Obama administration thinks an American might be a terrorist thay can murder him/her.

What if the administration thinks the person might be some sort of radical, leftist or comminist that may be an "enemy subversive"?

Are they also fair game to murder now or is that down the road a few years?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Let's say that Prescott Bush had formally joined the Nazis.

And not only joined them, but became a major player in their war effort.

Would it then become constitutional to launch a military mission targeting Baron Von Bush's evil headquarters with him inside, even though he's still a U.S. citizen? I mean, the police can shoot people if you're resisting arrest and proving a physical threat. Is not joining a militant foreign enemy essentially resisting arrest?

[Luminous Animal]

32. The police cannot ambush a suspect and assissinate him without due process.

And the police cannot merely shoot a person for resisting arrest. They are trained to shoot as a last resort. You are advocating shoot first and ask questions later.

And no, joining a militant foreign enemy is not resisting arrest. It is, quite simply, joining a militant foreign organization that perceives the U.S. as being the enemy.

[Tim01]

12. Bush is nothing but an evil imperialistic warmonger. nt

[Merciful1]

13. Don't forget

And lets not forget that according to a recent Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll, one in four republicans think the president is a terrorist.

[hootinholler]

14. This should be the top story! n/t

[Merciful1]

15. Star chamber

We seriously need to get away from this cowardly Cheney/Israeli "extra judicial" Murder Inc - star chamber crap. It demeans us all. As I've always said since Bush was selected - try not to let him touch anything while he's there, and then review everything after he's gone.

Count the silverware too...

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul

[tavalon]

38. Bush never forfeited his soul

One must first possess a soul and he doesn't have one, never did. I have called him the silverspoon sociopath for years.

[Echo In Light]

17. K&R

[leftstreet]

22. K&R

[varelse]

24. I don't know what is more horrifying

this misguided policy upheld (or created? I hope not!) by our current administration, or the fact that there's actually someone on DU who sees even the possibility of American citizens being summarily put to death by our government without trial as a minor issue not worthy of alarm.

[RetroLounge]

26. I think her word was kerfuffle

Nothing to worry about, see?

It's just a kerfuffle.

RL

[Faryn Balyncd]

30. k and r

[troubledamerican]

31. Seeds of Blowback -- when the next Neocon President begins assassinations...

[ddeclue]

36. But they ARE cool with corporations being people?

What happens if Obama puts a hit out on General Electric?

:shrug:

Just askin'

[tavalon]

37. Call me silly, but I have a problem with them assassinating anybody

American or otherwise.

[inna]

39. Very disturbing. KR

[Octafish]

40. I'm not cool with it, either.

In fact, I'm pissed. I voted for Obama and got McPalin.