The implications are chilling. In principle, there is nothing in such a policy to stop intelligence officials from declaring political opponents of US imperialism within the 50 states to be terrorists and put on a list for liquidation. The executive branch arrogates to itself the powers of judge, jury, and executioner, and those targeted for liquidation have no right to question the supposed evidence against them.
There is a deeper logic behind the order to kill Awlaki. Under conditions of economic crisis, the methods of imperialist violence abroad must inevitably be visited upon the population at home. The turn toward war and increasingly dictatorial forms of rule both rise inexorably from the deepening crisis of US and world capitalism.
The New York Times article on the decision reads as a legal brief defending it. Cornered by reporters with video cameras, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to President Obama's reelection campaign, attempted to defend the kill list that the Obama Administration uses to determine whose body should next be blown apart. American drone strikes have resulted in hundreds of dead innocents in the last four years, even as the program has killed a number of high-level al Qaeda terrorists.
There are two remarkable things about the ensuing exchange, which eventually turns into a discussion about a dead year-old kid:. First, it's vital for the uninitiated to understand how Team Obama misleads when it talks about its drone program. Asked how their kill list can be justified, Gibbs replies that "When there are people who are trying to harm us, and have pledged to bring terror to these shores , we've taken that fight to them.
But we do know that U. Take Pakistan, where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. The second notable statement concerns the killing of year-old American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. Tom Junod gives the back story:. Bush merely imprisoned Padilla for years without a trial. If that's a vicious, tyrannical assault on the Constitution -- and it was -- what should they be saying about the Nobel Peace Prize winner's assassination of American citizens without any due process?
If the answer is yes, then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? If the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, imprison American citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?
Notice the power that was missing from Gore's indictment of Bush radicalism: the power to kill American citizens. Add that to the litany -- as Obama has now done -- and consider how much more compelling Gore's accusatory questions become. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants? I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.
So back then, Obama said the President lacks the power merely to detain U. Now, as President, he claims the power to assassinate them without charges. Could even his hardest-core loyalists try to reconcile that with a straight face?
As Spencer Ackerman documents today , not even John Yoo claimed that the President possessed the power Obama is claiming here.
No evidence has been presented, however, to suggest that Awlaki in any way planned or ordered the attack. There have also been allegations, so far entirely unsubstantiated, linking Awlaki to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian youth who attempted to blow up an airplane as it approached Detroit on December 25, The failed attack was, in fact, made possible by the stand-down of the US intelligence apparatus—or its direct complicity.
This is a legal issue that needs to be answered. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula … They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.
The Obama administration justifies the policy of targeting US citizens for murder by citing the September 14, congressional act, the Authorization to Use Military Force. The Obama White House is evidently seeking a new pseudo-legal justification for the policy of state murder. There has been no evidence that suggests Awlaki represents any immediate threat to the US people.
On the contrary, his killing will only provide new fodder for terrorist groups. The implications are chilling. In principle, there is nothing in such a policy to stop intelligence officials from declaring political opponents of US imperialism within the 50 states to be terrorists and put on a list for liquidation.
There is a deeper logic behind the order to kill Awlaki. Under conditions of economic crisis, the methods of imperialist violence abroad must inevitably be visited upon the population at home. The turn toward war and increasingly dictatorial forms of rule both rise inexorably from the deepening crisis of US and world capitalism.
The New York Times article on the decision reads as a legal brief defending it. Only through the independent political mobilization of the working class against both parties of US.
Constitution This is very disturbing news. Obama's regime has now surpassed the audacity of the previous as of yet untried war criminal regime of GW Bush by ordering assassinations of U. While we may not like all U.
Opening the door for assassination of one U. Who will be next targeted for elimination by Obama's CIA hit squad? Any political leader ordering assassinations of U.
0コメント