It was far from the primary focus of media coverage today, but after the CIA assassinated two American citizens this morning in a drone strike against Yemen, there have been some questions about the legality and constitutionality of the president ordering the deaths of Americans without a trial.
Read here for Scott Shane’s take at the New York Times
Click here for the Associated Press analysis at NavyTimes
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- Israeli MPs Push Trump to Let Them Use Military Aid on Non-US Equipment - May 21st, 2018
- Syrian Army Has Full Control of Metro Damascus After ISIS Ouster - May 21st, 2018
- Trump to Press South Korea's Moon on Upcoming Kim Summit - May 21st, 2018
- South Koreans See John Bolton as an Obstacle to Trump-Kim Summit - May 21st, 2018
- As ISIS Shrinks in Iraq and Syria, US Military Focus Shifts to Afghanistan - May 21st, 2018
The White House lawyers have already justified the legality of Executive Action. And the Republicans who spout how much they love the Constitution and the Rule of Law don't dare open their mouths to complain because they know they'll be asked "where the *&^% were you when Bushco pissed all over the Constitution? Besides, all politicians with Presidential aspirations (and that's all of them) are really keen on having the power themselves to do what Bush and Obama have done.
"When I'm King, you'll be first against the wall!" Paranoid Android, Radiohead
There is on Republican who complained loud and clear about this unpresidented abuse of power. His name is Ron Paul.
Mr B.Obama is herby welcomed to the dictator Hall of Fame.
Although it is a humble beginning with just Two citizens summarily executed, the mere fact that he, as a Nobel peace prize Laureate, ignoring “The Constitution of the United States” took a giant leap forward in taking Presidential power to a new level.
I salute You
ps. as a budgetary measure may I suggest putting those drones to work in the Continental United States thereby saving precious fuel and cutting maintenance.
" Legality of Assassinating Americans Considered "
Ummmm… might want to have all of that worked out BEFORE you start murdering people out of hand, huh?
Sadly, we are all Awlaki.
US government didn't like Anwar Awlaki. He's icky. Dang if that ain't about too bad. So and according to Holder's Department of Just Us, well, you're a dead man. You know, for being icky. Due process is dead and we are all dead. What about Pat Robertson? He's about a bats*@t insane cleric. Is Holder and the Obama going to target him? I think that might be unlikely but, you never know. Not these days.
If a mere connection to a crime is sufficiant for summery execution then Holder better watch out. He is connected to the supply of guns given to mexican terrorists.
“No one shall enrich themselves upon the misery of another.”
“An unjust law is no law at all.”
So, if our Empire is criminal then the terrorists are doing good. Whereas, if our Empire is doing good then terrorists are criminal.
And so, before the order is given, “Wanted dead or alive,” why not have a jury trial?
They also said today that the guy who made the undy bomb was also taken out.
Why would they take him out? He set a terrorist's pants on fire. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Oh and the dude with the web site had a big plot to put schimitars on cars and drive around slicing and dicing. The cleric of course did have contact with a dangerous man. One we trained.
It seems we are good at training them. The fort hood Major, the pilots on 9/11 and the anthrax that came from our lab. We also train a bunch of keystone terrorists and then bust them as well.
The most dangerous thing about the cleric, undybomber and web site man is what they have given us. They have given us an excuse to destroy more of our freedoms and protections from government and our leaders have jumped at the chance, while the sheep stand around and cheer.
From a distance: Today in Denmark, there is an outrage of some christian priest being condemned to death in Iran. But when one voices the death of those people in Yemen, you simply get no reply whatsoever!
In favct most people seems to be willing to accept witch-burning, if that would uphold their normal life.
Assassination has been a policy of the US government for decades. Its difficult to determine the exact time it began but among the more well known victims were John Dillinger and Charles (Pretty Boy) Floyd. Both were gunned down by Federal authorities who touted murder as a means of eliminating “threats” to well-ordered society.
One might say that Dillinger and Floyd were gangsters and deserved what they got. Maybe. But the problem is once the government initiates Executive Action and is given public support, albeit tacit, a precedent is established. With the current arrogance of the US government being what it is, ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN may be assassinated in the name of national security or whatever cause de jour Holder and his ilk might conjure.
"Consideration." "Discussion." NO. Procede directly to impeachment of the President.
Today it's Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Tomorrow it will be Joe Smith and Bob Brown, both while sleeping in their own beds in Anytown, USA.
I haven't read all 18 pages of comments on the Times story, but I have read Page 1. With a couple of exceptions it reads like a set of man-on-the-street interviews collected at a lynching. Treason has a definition in the US Constitution. The Times' readers do not know that definition. They know nothing, in fact, except what the government and a compliant media have told them: a tale contradicted by disinterested authorities. (For those think that disinterested means uninterested, go to Dictionary.org.) A significant slice of the population detests due process and evidence. Because they do the country is in deep trouble.