Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Jonathan Turley chimes in on Obama & the NDAA. Another Constitutional scholar is appalled. [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)4. Turley stood up to the BFEE
A secret CIA assassination policy for citizens
December 27, 2002|By Jonathan Turley. Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University Law School.
In a season of lists, last week's disclosure of the assassination list by the Bush administration may be the ultimate gift idea for the agency that is close to having everything. After a post-Sept. 11 windfall of expanded budgets, personnel and power, it was inevitable that CIA officials would return to the one item that they have most coveted: the discretionary use of assassination. Not only does the CIA have a specific wish list of two dozen targets, it is not confined to this list for targets and even citizens could be subject to this lethal form of agency action.
In 2001, President Bush issued a secret order to the CIA that generally authorized the use of assassination as an anti-terrorism tool. When disclosed last month, it was noted that the order conspicuously did not limit assassination to non-citizens, a fact that the White House has never denied. The order signaled a radical change in U.S. policy. In the 1970s, the Church Committee found that the United States had used assassination extensively with often disastrous results. It turns out that (to our credit) we stink at assassination.
While assassinations were sharply curtailed, the United States occasionally dabbled in the dark art. During the Reagan administration, a hit was reportedly ordered on Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, a fanatical cleric with terrorist ties. On March 8, 1985, the CIA used a Lebanese team and money from Saudi Arabia to explode a car bomb outside his mosque. The bomb was detonated when hundreds of Muslims were leaving services, killing more than 80 people and wounding more than 250. One fact in the bombing instantly pegged the attempted hit as a likely CIA operation: The one person left unscathed was Sheikh Fadlallah. It is something of a signature element of past CIA hits: Many die but the target remains.
It is not clear whether the CIA will return to the use of car bombs, which has taken on a certain pejorative tint of late. However, it now has authority to engage in a level of assassination that we have not seen since before Nixon.
CONTINUED...
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-12-27/news/0212270378_1_cia-assassination-al-qaeda
December 27, 2002|By Jonathan Turley. Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University Law School.
In a season of lists, last week's disclosure of the assassination list by the Bush administration may be the ultimate gift idea for the agency that is close to having everything. After a post-Sept. 11 windfall of expanded budgets, personnel and power, it was inevitable that CIA officials would return to the one item that they have most coveted: the discretionary use of assassination. Not only does the CIA have a specific wish list of two dozen targets, it is not confined to this list for targets and even citizens could be subject to this lethal form of agency action.
In 2001, President Bush issued a secret order to the CIA that generally authorized the use of assassination as an anti-terrorism tool. When disclosed last month, it was noted that the order conspicuously did not limit assassination to non-citizens, a fact that the White House has never denied. The order signaled a radical change in U.S. policy. In the 1970s, the Church Committee found that the United States had used assassination extensively with often disastrous results. It turns out that (to our credit) we stink at assassination.
While assassinations were sharply curtailed, the United States occasionally dabbled in the dark art. During the Reagan administration, a hit was reportedly ordered on Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, a fanatical cleric with terrorist ties. On March 8, 1985, the CIA used a Lebanese team and money from Saudi Arabia to explode a car bomb outside his mosque. The bomb was detonated when hundreds of Muslims were leaving services, killing more than 80 people and wounding more than 250. One fact in the bombing instantly pegged the attempted hit as a likely CIA operation: The one person left unscathed was Sheikh Fadlallah. It is something of a signature element of past CIA hits: Many die but the target remains.
It is not clear whether the CIA will return to the use of car bombs, which has taken on a certain pejorative tint of late. However, it now has authority to engage in a level of assassination that we have not seen since before Nixon.
CONTINUED...
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-12-27/news/0212270378_1_cia-assassination-al-qaeda
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
101 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Jonathan Turley chimes in on Obama & the NDAA. Another Constitutional scholar is appalled. [View all]
tpsbmam
Jan 2012
OP
especially since only "you know who" is speaking out against this in their campaign
think
Jan 2012
#2
In other words, some anonymous people on the internet will disagree with him.
Dewey Finn
Jan 2012
#3
The "constitutional scholar" seems to rely on hyperbole, rather than the constitution, for arguments
bhikkhu
Jan 2012
#5
Said "constitutional scholar" just lost a case against Obama, and got spanked by the judge.
msanthrope
Jan 2012
#42
And the fact that the 2001 military authorization is appalling is beside the point?
eridani
Jan 2012
#54
As do you, going so far to ignore some of those who wrote the damn thing.
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#10
Incomplete--Turley just lost a case to Obama. Turley now criticizes Obama. nt
msanthrope
Jan 2012
#43
This is a terrible provision of the NDAA, but where's the outrage at Congress?
boxman15
Jan 2012
#13
Congress is useless and ineffective on both sides. Obama could have vetoed.
piratefish08
Jan 2012
#16
It's not that bizarre. It would take congress another month or two to pass it.
killbotfactory
Jan 2012
#37
Two months of no funding for the VA. I can imagine how kindly the "liberal media" would treat that.
Robb
Jan 2012
#45
Nah, better to do childish shit just to prove a point rather than do something constructive
uponit7771
Jan 2012
#99
And yet, most people stay away from voting in a non-presidential election year.
killbotfactory
Jan 2012
#26
Can Turley wait his turn please? This board is not yet done with the Greenwald hate festival.
JackRiddler
Jan 2012
#19
I take it Turley's still sore over the public spanking he got in Kucinich v. Obama?
msanthrope
Jan 2012
#40
Turley's is a reasonable if somewhat mild response to a fascist law. K&R (nt)
T S Justly
Jan 2012
#71
Oh, c'mon. We can trust the miliatary and government to do the right thing.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jan 2012
#72
feh. turley likes to get his name in print. the compromise language makes clear that the ndaa cannot
struggle4progress
Jan 2012
#93