Please think again: do you really want executions without indictment or trial?

[MannyGoldstein]

I was listening to NPR's talk of the nation in the car today. Jonathan Turley was a guest, discussing his new article:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/30-4">Obama: A Disaster for Civil Liberties.

Turley reminds us that Obama has made legal claims, which strip our civil liberties, that no previous President has made, not even Bush.

The interview is up on NPR's web site: http://www.npr.org/2011/10/10/141213273/op-ed-obama-devastating-for-civil-liberties?ps=cprs

I know that many even on DU are OK with Obama's actions in this regard. I hope that those who are can take a few minutes to hear Turley discuss the path that we're headed down, I don't think it's what we want for our country. Much bigger than the death of a specific scoundrel, it's about changing the way our laws are understood.

[valerief]

1. No, I don't want endless war. nt

[whatchamacallit]

2. Good luck Manny, cognitive dissonance is epidemic here.

:banghead:

[jefferson_dem]

3. I'm no more for "executions without indictment or trial" than you are an "al-Qaeda sympathizer".

However, I do support the successful military mission that expired the human debris called Anwar al-Awlaki.

And Turley has been whining, in full hyperbolic fashion, about Obama for two years now. :boring: Nothing new here.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. So you're in favor of executing people without indictment or trial.

Or am I missing something here?

[jefferson_dem]

6. You're missing something here.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. What am I missing?

Is it that you're *mostly* against execution without indictment or trial? I can understand this position, although I disagree with it.

[jefferson_dem]

8. You're applying a term (execution) that relates to criminal justice and punishment...

where it does not fit, in my opinion. Anwar al-Awlaki was not in custody. He was on the battlefield. If he was in custody, if he had surrendered or been captured, and was summarily *executed* without indictment or trial, you would have a case. War isn't pretty. Deal with it.

[Vinnie From Indy]

10. Which battlefield was al-Alawki on?

It would seem that you also endorse the notion that the President can conduct the war on terror anywhere on the planet. If that is true, then by implication you also support the President killing folks in Ohio or Arizona if they are deemed a "terrorist". Is killing Americans in America without indictment and trial something you have always felt was correct and in line with our Constitution?

[jefferson_dem]

12. Contradicts American law, huh? What about "freedom, justice, human rights and respect of freedoms?!”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/al-qaeda-joins-those-questioning-legality-of-awlaki-killing/2011/10/10/gIQAH7nZaL_blog.html

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Is the battlefield the entire planet?

That's a serious question.

[jefferson_dem]

13. No.

Not necessarily. Would you have preferred that US military delivered Miranda warnings on the beaches at Normandy?

[teddy51]

14. Thats a different scenario altogether, we were at war with both Germany and Japan

at that time. We are not at war with American citizens that I am aware of!

[MannyGoldstein]

15. According to Obama's claims, there are no limits to the battlefield

I think that most of us who are upset would feel a lot better if there had been some judicial oversight to Awlaki's execution warrant.

I also think that you see a basic difference between Normandy and extrajudicial execution via drone, but I can lay out the differences as I see them if you'd like.

[teddy51]

16. judicial oversight in that he was brought to trial would have worked for me!

Just going about the business of killing him does not sit well with many. As stated in another post, if Obama can kill this guy and an another with him, why not you or me? What's to prevent that?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[teddy51]

9. I'm certainly not in favor of an Obama out of control, and he certainly seems

to be at this time. Being a Constitutional Scholar, he knows damn well that what he did with respect to being Judge, Jury, and Executioner was absolutely wrong. His justice Department has made no effort to prosecute the previous Administration for their (obvious) crimes, but has no problem killing US citizens when he alone determines their guilt.

To Add:

My problem is who do we elect to the office of President come November 2012? Obama knows that we on the left have a problem with that! We really are damned if we do or damned if we don't vote for Obama.
What is the best of the evils?

[ProSense]

17. It

<...>

Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.

But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama's personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush. Indeed, only a few days after he took office, the Nobel committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. Many Democrats were, and remain, enraptured.

<...>

...figures that this bullshit commentary would be appealing. I mean, WTF? Does Turley actually read what they writes? He can criticize the President for not doing more, but before calling the President a "disaster" and trying to imply that the President has done more damage than good, and using is race to bolster the claim, which is preposterous and disgusting, he needs to take heed of the facts.

The ACLU praised the Obama administration for ending Bush's torture policies

President Obama Signs Executive Order Widening Government Transparency

WH fact sheet on Guantanamo Executive Order and ACLU response

ACLU: Justice Is Served (Fair Sentencing Act made retroactive)

A Win for Free Speech: ACLU Recommendations Adopted by DHS!

Anwar al-Awlaki was a terrorist.

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula calls al-Awlaki a martyr, promises retaliation

[MannyGoldstein]

18. So are you claiming that Obama is not making new and extraordinary claims

that strip our civil liberties? Or that Obama is not refusing to carry out his responsibility, under international law, to prosecute torture? Or that Obama is not claiming that he may execute anyone, anywhere, at any time, simply because he alone deems them to be a terrorist?

[ProSense]

20. Actually,

"So are you claiming that Obama is not making new and extraordinary claims"

...I'm claiming that Turley's article is moronic drivel!

[Vinnie From Indy]

26. Which is an obvious dodge of Manny's question.

What is amazing is that you appear to believe that fair-minded readers cannot see that fact.

[ProSense]

32. Actually

"What is amazing is that you appear to believe that fair-minded readers cannot see that fact."

...what's amazing is the attempt to appear reasonable when I absolutely doubt you've read any of the counter points of that have been repeated ad nauseum. Start with the links here.

[Vinnie From Indy]

34. Your debate by blue linky has always amused me

Often times your links actually refute the offerings in your posts. Again, you refuse to answer. That fact is clear as day to all but the most, hard core, willfully ignorant.

Cheers!

[ProSense]

37. And

"Your debate by blue linky has always amused me"

...anyone using the phrase "blue linky" can't be taken seriously, which is likely why you're amusing yourself.

[MNBrewer]

50. Without actually accounting for your opinion, I might point out.

No facts, just your O P I N I O N.

[RC]

22. It seems some people will excuse the president for murder,

as long as they have the correct letter by their name, be it a (R) or a (D).

[ProSense]

24. And

It seems some people will excuse the president for murder, as long as they have the correct letter by their name, be it a (R) or a (D).

...it seems some people would rather cry over the death of a terrorist as long as there is an anti-Obama angle.

Boo fucking hoo!

[MannyGoldstein]

30. We're crying over the abrogation of law, not over the specific person

We are a nation of laws: do you disagree?

[ProSense]

35. No

"We're crying over the abrogation of law, not over the specific person"

...you're crying over the death of a terrorist.

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula calls al-Awlaki a martyr, promises retaliation


From a law signed by Bill Clinton:

(4) the President should use all necessary means, including covert action and military force, to disrupt, dismantle, and destroy international infrastructure used by international terrorists, including overseas terrorist training facilities and safe havens;

Americans are not equivalent to terrorists

People need to stop pretending that there was some precendent set in pursuing a terrorist. Waco was nothing like pursuing a terrorist in Yemen, and it's possible to capture terrorists in this country.

Seven Face Terrorism Charges in N.C.

I don't consider U.S. citizenship to be an excuse for treating a terrorist like any other terrorist.

Too bad for al-Awlaki or bin Laden they weren't found hiding in someone's house inside the U.S.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. So we'll put you in the "Execution without indictment or trial is OK" camp

We'll agree to disagree.

Do you also believe that it's OK to give torture a pass?

[MNBrewer]

51. Prosense likes whatever Obama does

Regardless (or maybe because) of how odious and damaging it is.

[baldguy]

19. Is killing on the field of battle someone who has taken up arms against America "assassination"?

You may or may not agree with the objectives & goals of the war - or lack thereof, but it's still a war.

[teddy51]

21. So the Administration has now declared war on US citizens? Hmmm didn't know that? n/t

[baldguy]

25. Like it or not, the Obama Admin has determined that al Qaeda is a threat to America.

Targeting & killing the leaders of al Qaeda is not an unreasonable response to the threat, whether those leaders are from Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Arizona - whether the President is Clinton, Bush Jr or Obama.

[Vinnie From Indy]

29. Actually,there is NO stipulation that this newly claimed presidential power is in any way restricted

to only Al Queda. The fact is that the legal justification for killing al-Alawki is in no way restricted to only Al Queda.

Also, Bush nor Clinton ever claimed the right to kill Americans without any due process anywhere on the planet and away from any battlefield.

[teddy51]

31. I don't like it one little bit when an elected Politician decides that he can

just kill American citizens if he deems them to be against America, with out a trial by his/her peers. If we allow this to begin, then we have certainly given up our civil liberties, and who is to say which American will be next to die?

[a simple pattern]

42. Define "Al Quaeda."

If you would, please.

[RC]

23. No, it is terrorism.

WE, the United States is the worlds biggest terrorist.

[baldguy]

28. You've got a better case for claiming "terrorism"

when we bomb civilian wedding parties & regular religious services than when we kill one of the leaders of an organization bent on destroying America.

[COLGATE4]

27. If that's true, why did the Obama administration rush to have the DOJ

lawyers cobble together a John Yoo-type memo outlining the purported legal bases the President has for waxing an American citizen without Due Process? They could have spared us 50-some odd pages of legal B.S. and instead merely said in one sentence 'killing someone on a field of battle who has taken up arms against the United States falls under the law of War". Wonder why they didn't do that....?

[Warren Stupidity]

33. What field of battle?

Oh and while Awlaki was alleged to have been involved in at least urging on one or more attacks against the US, the same cannot be said for Samir Kahn, who did nothing more than publish a magazine and a website, neither of which made any explicit calls for violence. Neither of these men were on or near any field of battle when assassinated. Neither of these men were members of a military force of a nation we are at war with (and of course we are not officially in a state of war with any nation or group as we have not had a declaration of war.) Awlaki was the subject of an explicit assassination order against an american citizen, an order issued without benefit of indictment, trial, or any form of judicial review. That was an extraordinary event. It is a star chamber moment for this nation. We should be concerned.

[TreasonousBastard]

36. I heard that, too, and Turley is still banging that drum...

We're all gonna die because Obama didn't right every possible wrong going back to Nixon, and before. What he's doing is worse than the Alien and Sedition Acts, Japanese internment, McCarthy nonsense, Enemies List, and the ruder parts of the Patriot Act combined. Haven't past Presidents sent cruise missiles, usually missing the actual target? Are we not sending robot planes into Pakistan as we speak?

No, I don't stomach the idea of assassination, but Obama didn't invent it, and the target being a dual citizen is an interesting wrinkle, but doesn't change the basic idea of killing an enemy-- which tends to happen. I didn't like the idea of blowing away that other piece of shit, either, but shit happens, and blowing away a piece of shit or two isn't in nearly league with blowing away two entire countries.

I'm not "approving" of Obama's orders here (as if he needs my personal endorsement) just saying make a case for the illegality (which Turley hasn't) and/or make the case for changing the law and taking assassination out of the Presidential, CIA, and anyone else's toolkits.

[teddy51]

38. If you want to look at enemies, then you should be looking at the Moran's

on the right of congress. These are as much our enemies as a so called member of Al-Qaeda in Yemen.

[quaker bill]

39. I don't want them at all.

I don't get how an indictment or trial makes it better. Putting a thin film of legality over it does not help.

[RC]

41. So, following the rule of law doesn't matter? You would support our country with a king or dictator

in charge? Sieg heil!???

[quaker bill]

45. Don't read well?

I was pretty clear that I don't favor executions at all. Government should not have this power. That you prefer the power served on the finest china, is not really all that commendable.

Let's get a little George Carlin about this: If you want them dead, then why all the fussing about process?

If you don't want them dead, just say it and stop pretending.

Life and death are a zero and one situation, decorating it with some process, (particularly one where the outcome is known in advance) really does not help.

[chill_wind]

43. K and invisible rec. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

44. Did you serve in the military, Manny?

I'm just curious how you think any of your lame criticism of President Obama helps.
Jonathan Turley needs to go review those laws.
He doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

[MNBrewer]

46. Yes, they do want exactly that

Because a wonderful, perfect Democrat who can do no wrong is in the White House, and will be forever and ever. They trust him to protect them and not abuse the power that was given to President Bush, even though they hated it when Bush had the power, and despite the fact that Obama has gone way beyond what Bush ever tried to do.

Obama is the man. Chill the fuck out. He's got this.

:sarcasm:

[sad sally]

47. President Obama has broken the rule of law that matches Bush/Cheney

The US is on a slippery slope, just as it was with allowing torture of prisoners who hadn't/haven't been charged with any crime, that are locked up for years with no legal representation. Secret black sites, operated in foreign countries for the US, still exist.

There should be no surprise when other countries who see America as a leader will follow with similar actions. If those who explicitly trust the President with an unlimited license to become judge, jury and executioner - to kill anyone they say they have secret evidence against, state secret evidence that no court may adjudicate as to its legality - why should the United States continue to bother with inefficient courts, juries, and trials at all.

[johnaries]

48. Please look up the term prima facie. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

49. OK, if you look up "star chamber"

Regards,

Manny.

[woo me with science]

52. K&R

These are deeply disturbing actions by any President.

Welcome to the neocon Third Way Democratic Party.