The Obama administration seems to have gone Jack Bauer on us, which would be okay if we were just talking about non-American enemy combatants on some far-flung battlefield. It seems the administration danced its way around case law and the Constitution in an attempt to justify the assassination of three American citizens it refuses to acknowledge it had any part of, post execution.
In September 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki, the mastermind behind the failed December 25, 2010 airplane BVD bombing, and his cohort, Samir Khan were killed. Two weeks later, in a separate drone attack, Denver native and 16-year-old son of al-Awlaki followed his father’s fate.
According to the Washington Post, “a recently leaked ‘white paper’ from the Justice Department...permits the government to kill its citizens in secret while refusing to acknowledge, even after the fact, that it had done so.”
No matter how evil someone is, it is unnerving that any president wouldn’t hesitate to blatantly disregard an American citizen’s constitutional right to a trial and then make the decision to become prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner of that same citizen — and not man-up afterward.
To be clear, the use of drones on the modern battlefield has proven effective, but great ideas in the wrong hands can sour quickly.
In the recently crafted white paper, the administration makes a weak argument to justify its seeming extrajudicial power grab by suggesting “the use of lethal force” against an American citizen is equivalent to George W. Bush’s detention of foreign enemy combatants.
It seems like only yesterday a then-junior senator from Illinois repetitively repudiated Bush’s actions that included the capture, detention, and questioning of non-American enemy combatants, and a military-style christening of a few.
Many say Bush’s actions led to information regarding Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts and eventual elimination.
What a difference a little (or a lot of) power makes. There’s a new sheriff in town and, suddenly, the North Star we Americans call the Constitution is no longer the effective navigational tool it once was.
Now it’s okay to assassinate citizens and grant due process to non-citizens.
After Obama’s election, his administration became obsessed with lavishing constitutional rights on Guantanamo Bay terrorists and tried to move them to New York City where they’d be granted due process. Back in August 2012, Attorney General Holder told Bloomberg he still regrets the “missed opportunity.”
To complicate things, the white paper extends the battlefield to any foreign country. Page 7 suggests “clear evidence” — that a specific act will occur in the near future -- is not required. Page 11 supports killing those simply in the scheming stage, leaving no room for a change of heart. They are guilty because they thought about it.
To be fair, the paper does identify potential targets as high level leaders, and it also lists “capture” as an option, but contradicts itself considering what supposedly happened to the 16-year-old Denver resident. Guilty by association?
Throughout the 16-page document, the white paper intermittently leaves out the word “al-Qaida,” and uses the term “terrorist groups” (or variants thereof), which would be of no concern were we dealing with a more transparent and less paranoid administration.
Lest we forget, they put out the “Right-wing extremists” watch list in 2009 secretly informing police forces to look out for those who love God, celebrate freedom, adhere to wholesome values, and cherish the Constitution.
What one generation does in moderation the next does in excess; the same goes for presidents. Baby steps. As simplistic as it is, two wrongs will never make something right.
We are now witnessing liberals using Bush’s so-called extra-judicial activities as case law to justify stepping deeper into the darkness in support of third world-like capital punishment without trial.
So what might this president, or his successor, try next?
Susan Stamper Brown is an opinion page columnist, motivational speaker and military advocate who writes about politics, the military, the economy and culture. Email Susan at writestamper@gmail.com or go to susanstamperbrown.com.
Ponderful posted at 11:28 am on Mon, Feb 25, 2013.
Cripes Susan, we're in a war. The war on terror continues, and we need to get behind the president and support him rather than playing political games. We need to trust that our elected officials are doing what it takes to protect America; nitpicking the methods they use is not helpful. Susan, why are you giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
sockratties posted at 5:51 am on Wed, Feb 20, 2013.
Rich,
I think you hit the nail on the head there: ‘the only justification for killing is that you will die if you don’t kill.’ Well many of us have died as a result of multiple attacks by an enemy that has sworn to destroy us. If the weapon required is drones, so be it. Did you hit them with a stack of books or shoot them with an arrow? No. You used the weapons necessary to get the job done. If drones are the required weapon, then so be it. Anyone working with the enemy is the enemy!
Rich posted at 7:32 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.
Mike,
Have you ever been on a battlefield/? I have. Other people here answering you have been. We didn't make a mistake, or we wouldn't be here answering you. It isn't the mindless violence you picture it. And a drone taking out someone on a lonely road isn't anywhere close to one. The only justification for killing is that you will die if you don't kill. Do it as I have, and pay every day of your life. That isn't the case here. I didn't go to war, kill so you could tell me how to save you from your own inadequacy Mike. The world is full of artists, believers, philosophers that disagree with you. Because your candidate got elected, he can't kill us. Which is what you advocating. He just has to say I am a terrorist, and the rules get kicked to the curb. Sort of like being a 'heretic' or a 'witch'.
downtownresident posted at 11:30 am on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.
Suzie, Honey,
Does your hypocracy know no bounds?
Can you not see how rediculous your little snit is.
The only difference here is that it was made public, instead of all being done in the dark, behind closed doors, and the man who is accused of these sins is a black Democrat.
Mike McClellan posted at 5:20 pm on Sat, Feb 16, 2013.
So the SEALS should wait for him to resist with deadly force before firing at him.
An interesting principle of war posited here.
Rich posted at 8:15 pm on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.
" if Al-Awalki had been confronted by SEALS on the battle field, should those SEALS be tried for murder if they killed him?"
If he resisted with deadly force, no. If anything else yes.
The theory is that you get your day to state your case. You killed... why? What are your ideas? We need them to grow, no matter how demented the are, because we must deal with them, and learn.
mnjcpa posted at 7:05 pm on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.
Mike - You've had numerous comments explaining why this is not Obama's call to make and you're still at it.
DonMey comments the lack of checks and balances. valleynative does a great job. Rich has rephrased multiple times why it's wrong that the government can label you and then act without due process suspending the Constitution, acting as judge, jury and executioner.
And you're still at it.
Must be because anything Obama does is okay by you. Or quite possible you're thick as a brick.
Mike McClellan posted at 5:48 pm on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.
So, Don, if Al-Awalki had been confronted by SEALS on the battle field, should those SEALS be tried for murder if they killed him?
DonMey posted at 11:42 am on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.
Mike - The problem is a lack of Checks and Balances in killing these people. There is a legal precedent for people engaging in acts against the nation being classified as "voluntarily" giving up their citizenship. But the person determining the targets, and firing on them, should not be the same team that decides the person qualifies as having surrendered their citizenship in the first place.
Bluepoet posted at 10:43 am on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.
This also begs the question of what constitutes War, and what the legalities are within that framework. Obviously, the Geneva convention is inadequate, and the constitutional checks and balances are insufficient, as well. Is it time for a new amendment, or are we bound for an ever-increasing police state, for our "own good"?
Bluepoet posted at 10:30 am on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.
Though it makes me ill to say it, I agree with SSB, though of course, she couldn't simply stick to her own subject, and had to color outside the lines, for her readership. Yes, it's wrong to target American citizens with drone attacks.
She just had to throw in that Obama's administration was not open, though...while also stating that we only know about any of this, because of a "leak" by the Justice Dept., which, last I checked, was part of the Executive branch. But, like Susan, I digress.
She was spot on, that the excesses of power inherited from previous presidents, are built upon...does it really surprise anyone that this will continue to be the case? Obama is no different than any of his predecessors--he just has a newer, more efficient means of testing the limits of power. The more apt question arising from this, is, "What happens when the enemies of our country, including the militaristic extremist citizens, have access to drone technology?" Will there be debates about the 2nd Amendment , then?
sockratties posted at 10:21 am on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.
Terrorism isn't in the conventional sense, war, even though some refer to the War on Terror much as they refer to the War on Drugs. War, in that context means an all out effort. Terrorism is criminal activity and the perpetrators are criminals. Those who aid and abet are also criminals. Criminals get due process AFTER they are caught.
sockratties posted at 10:21 am on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.
Well maybe if we had drones then things would have been done differently. WWII was a war between countries, the primary combatants were soldiers and lines of battle were well defined. There were rules of war, as silly as that sounds, and the good guys tried to follow them. Even though it was okay to carpet bomb cities while killing thousands of civilians as long as the target could be justified, and spies were shot on sight, there were rules. Germany had the Buzz Bomb but it was unguided and Japan had the Kamikaze which were suicide bombs. Technology just wasn’t available yet to do the job right.
Rich posted at 6:47 am on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.
Tomoya Kawakita tried in 1952, conviction affirmed by Supreme Court, charged with treason for beating American POWs. Born in Calexico.
Martin James Monti tried twice and convicted of desertion (1946) and treason (1948). Air Corps deserter and propaganda writer and broadcaster in Germany. Born in St. Louis.
Ezra Pound never tried declared mentally unfit and sent to a psychiatric hospital. Propagandist both as a writer and broadcaster in Italy. Born in Hailey, Idaho.
Robert Henry Best tried 1948 and convicted of treason. Propagandist in Germany. Born in Sumter, South Carolina.
Why was Al-Alwaki treated specially?
Rich posted at 6:46 am on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.
Velvalee Malvena Blucher tried 1944. Born in Sacramento, spy.
Axis Sally (Mildred Elizabeth Gillars - Germany; Rita Luisa Zucca - Italy) Gillars tried 1949. Born in Portland Maine, propaganda broadcaster, Zucca was arrested in 1945, but proved she renounced her citizenship and never was tried by an American court, was tried and convicted by an Italian one. Born in NYC.
Rich posted at 6:45 am on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.
"Al-Alwaki is no different from an American fighting for Nazi Germany or the Kaiser or the North Koreans or the Japanese Emperor."
The major cases from WW II are:
Tokyo Rose (Iva Toguri D'Aquino) tried 1949. Born in L. A. propaganda broadcaster.
Rich posted at 4:43 am on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.
So what Mike and Sock appear to be saying is that the government can label you and then act without due process suspending the Constitution, acting as judge, jury and executioner. I find that more than a bit radical.
sockratties posted at 11:29 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
How about Christopher Jordan Dorner, the cop killing cop who was just killed by ambush while on a killing spree in California. He was wanted for murder and had to eventually be captured or killed. No judge and jury there because he chose not to be taken into custody. I don't see the difference in active terrorist activities and other violent crimes. Once they give themselves up, there should be due process but until that time, they have forfieted thier rights.
mnjcpa posted at 7:07 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
Perfect example of why my children were pulled from the public school system.
Can't make this kind of thinking up.......
Mike McClellan posted at 6:43 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
She oversimplifies a complex situation to score political points. I suggest you read both Congress' authorization for the President to act and the entire Justice Department memo, instead of Stamper's cherry-picked couple of pages.
If that same American fought for an enemy in World War II or Korea or World War I, would the American soldiers have the right to kill him, or would that American have rights under our Constitution?
Al-Alwaki is no different from an American fighting for Nazi Germany or the Kaiser or the North Koreans or the Japanese Emperor.
valleynative posted at 6:36 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
Mike, you missed the part where I asked which jury of his peers had examined the evidence.
Rich posted at 5:59 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
Then Mike you agree with her. or you don't. I get it, a conservative said it so it has to be wrong somehow. The label 'terrorist' applied to an American citizen, does not suspend the Constitution and give the government the right to execute that citizen. Do you agree or disagree? The rest is dross, and it is indicative of dogmatic political positions that we even argue over it.
Mike McClellan posted at 5:20 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
native, you're serious about evidence he worked for terrorists?
He made videos for them:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6512422n
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8798703/Anwar-al-Awlakis-last-broadcast-message.html
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2071404288001/new-documents-shed-light-on-anwar-al-awlakis-role-in-911/
Rich, of course, doesn't get the point -- that Obama's the hypocrite here (though who you are might be where you are) and so is Stamper-Brown, who was curiously silent when Bush put the "kill or capture" on the same person.
http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/international-extremism-terrorism/c/aqap-releases-awlaki-video.html
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5BB81135A7AE476D
valleynative posted at 4:48 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
sockratties, the police are not allowed to post snipers in high crime areas and just shoot whoever they think they recognize through their spotting scope as being wanted. That's essentially what happened here.
mnjcpa posted at 4:47 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
So does that make Obama judge and jury sock? Hardly. There's things like order and law we follow in the United States and as much as he thinks he's King, it doesn't give him the right to play judge and jury. Wasn't Obama the one that feigned outrage over waterboarding and now he's okay with being a murderer? Typical Obama hypocrisy.
Valleynative and Rich are right Mike. How about laying blame where it needs to lie with this issue and the economy. At what point are you going to stop blaming Bush? A full 8 years after this huckster leaves office?
valleynative posted at 4:46 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
Mike, where is the evidence that he is working for a terrorist group? What jury reviewed that evidence and passed sentence?
There's a reason why the Constitution says that we shouldn't just trust that the government knows who's guilty and who isn't and would never lie to us.
Mike McClellan posted at 4:33 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
If an American citizen has become a jihadist working in another county and for an identified terrorist group and has participated in activities that did or could lead to Americans murdered, why is that wrong? Al-Awaki had self-identified as part of Al-Qaeda, and had become a spokesman for that group -- Al-Qaeda is a clear enemy of our country, with Al-Awaki as its main English spokesperson/propagandist.
Further, Congress tacitly authorized drone strikes in 2001:
"[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Could they have captured him? Any evidence of how easy that might've been? Are we required to capture an American who's become a sworn enemy of our country, aiding and abetting a group that has attacked America, both here at home and overseas?
If that American citizen's behavior has been scrutinized carefully and a case is made to kill or capture, why does that American's citizenship make him somehow free from attack?
Is he not the enemy?
I understand and share the concerns of cavalierly killing Americans overseas because of their associations, but having seen Martha McSally (Republican candidate for Gabby Giffords' seat in the last election) explain the vetting process before a person is targeted, it's not some "Hey, there he is! Get him!" kind of process.
Would it be better for Congress to declare war on various jihadist groups that attack or conspire to attack Americans? Would that be enough to continue the status quo?
sockratties posted at 4:28 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
If an American citizen commits a crime and is wanted by the police and when confronted refuses to be arrested and pulls a weapon on the police it's usually called suicide by cop. A terrorist is no different. If he is the enemy or actively aiding and abetting the enemy he is a criminal. The criminal gave up his rights when he refused arrest and until he is in safe custody he should be considered a threat to society and treated as such. Any terrorist, regardless of citizenship, is no different.
Rich posted at 4:20 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
So basically, Mike, it's wrong if Bush possibly attempted it it and becomes right when Obama does it? Great critical thinking there teach.
valleynative posted at 2:16 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
Why does it matter who complained and when? It's wrong. The U.S. government should not be authorizing assassinations of U.S. citizens. That's illegal, and the illegal taking of life is called "murder".
VofReason posted at 2:04 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
I don't know about the drone strikes, but for the love of Pete, don't let anyone dip them in water.
Mike McClellan posted at 1:34 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
Let's keep in mind that going after American jihadists is bipartisan, that Bush Administration officials have the same view as do the Obama administration officials:
John Yoo, John Bellinger, Jack Goldsmith --- all Bush Justice Department figures -- along with Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, have expressed support for killing American jihadists.
Al-Awaki had been pursued by the Bush Administration as well, with a kill or capture order.
Why isn't Stamper-Brown equally outraged by Bush's order? Why didn't she express her concern then?
Oh, wait, she DID write something about Bush taking out our enemies, no matter the nationality: she apparently believes that Obama stands on Bush's shoulders in his policies.
DonMey posted at 1:13 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
Unable to refute the message, Mike goes after the messenger.
valleynative posted at 1:11 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
It wasn't actually suspicion that Saddam was building WMD's, it was the belief shared by every major intelligence agency in the world that he had retained some WMD from the stockpile he was known to have had. You do recall, don't you, that he had used WMD in the past?
There's a difference between going to war with another nation and killing your own citizens because you suspect they are terrorists. The U.S. government is not allowed, by law, to target U.S. citizens for assassination without a trial.
sockratties posted at 12:51 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
I had something I wanted to share but EVT decided it was SPAM
Just remember.... If Jack had his way without all the government interference the show would have been called 12!
sockratties posted at 12:42 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
We are in a war and the enemy wants to do us as much harm as possible. We invaded Iraq and killed thousands based on suspicions that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction. We invaded Afghanistan and continue to kill Afghanis because Afghanistan was being used as a base by al-Qaeda, then we hung around to kill thousands more who were Taliban and opposed our intrusion.
valleynative posted at 11:12 am on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
Whether or not you believe in our system of justice, it is the law, and the government is bound to adhere to it.
If you prefer a system in which the government kills its enemies and then assures us through the media that they had proof of their crimes, then by all means, feel free to lobby to have the Constitution revised.
chatmandu002 posted at 11:02 am on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
I kind of like the sudden and final judgement of those that get "droned" after they have proven themselves to be our enemy. Now what about some justice for the terrorists Maj Hasan and the others in Gitmo. Our system of justice through the courts doesn't seem to work so well. Justice delayed is justice denied.
valleynative posted at 10:58 am on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
Mike, as a general rule of thumb, any time you find yourself saying that you "have a feeling" about how somebody else would behave under imaginary circumstances, you should stop talking to avoid looking foolish.
Believing that the federal government should not be violating American laws is not, in any conceivable form a "liberal" attitude. The fact that Obama has an itchier trigger finger than Bush is documented fact.
Do you have anything of value to contribute to the discussion?
Mike McClellan posted at 9:35 am on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
The hypocrisy is boundless here, as usual. Stamper-Brown suddenly becomes a liberal, while liberal Obama suddenly reincarnates as George Bush, but with an itchier trigger finger.
I have a feeling that if this were a Republican President with the same justification, Stamper-Brown would huzzah the guy for protecting American interests and lives.
Accuracy posted at 8:54 am on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
Susan Stamper Brown wrote: “Now it’s okay to assassinate citizens and grant due process to non-citizens.”
----------------------------------------------------------
In summary: The U.S. government has the authority to kill terrorist suspects, even if they're American citizens, according to a new Justice Department memo that provides a broad definition of those who pose an imminent threat.
The Obama administration has been searching for legal justification for its drone strikes against U.S. citizens who have links to al Qaeda.
Now the U.S. government only needs to show that the targeted suspect is involved in ongoing plotting against the United States.
mnjcpa posted at 8:46 am on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.
Spot on Susan.....the master hypocrite Obama all compassion and love for all. That's of course unless you disagree with his politics and bam!......you're wiped off the face of the earth. When will people see this man for what he is?