Glenn Greenwald: Execution by secret White House Committee

[Cali_Democrat]

By Glenn Greenwald
Thursday, Oct 6, 2011 5:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time

<snip>

So a panel operating out of the White House — that meets in total secrecy, with no known law or rules governing what it can do or how it operates — is empowered to place American citizens on a list to be killed by the CIA, which (by some process nobody knows) eventually makes its way to the President, who is the final Decider. It is difficult to describe the level of warped authoritarianism necessary to cause someone to lend their support to a twisted Star Chamber like that; I genuinely wonder whether the Good Democrats doing so actually first convince themselves that if this were the Bush White House’s hit list, or if it becomes Rick Perry’s, they would be supportive just the same. Seriously: if you’re willing to endorse having White House functionaries meet in secret — with no known guidelines, no oversight, no transparency — and compile lists of American citizens to be killed by the CIA without due process, what aren’t you willing to support?

<snip>

What’s crucial to keep in mind is that nobody can see this “evidence” which these anonymous government officials are claiming exists. It’s in their exclusive possession. As a result, they’re able to characterize it however they want, to present it in the best possible light to support their pro-assassination position, and to prevent any detection of its flaws. As any lawyer will tell you, anyone can make a case for anything when they’re in exclusive possession of all the relevant evidence and are the only side from whom one is hearing; all evidence becomes less compelling when it’s subjected to adversarial scrutiny. Yet even given all those highly favorable pro-government conditions here, it’s obvious — even these officials admit — that the evidence is “partial,” “patchy,” based on “suspicions” rather than knowledge.

But no matter. Officials in the Obama White House and then the President decreed in secret that Awlaki should die. So the U.S. Government killed him. Republicans who always cheer acts of violence against Muslims are joined by Democrats who reflexively cheer what this Democratic President does, and now this death panel for U.S. citizens — operating with no known rules, transparency, or oversight — is entrenched as bipartisan consensus and a permanent fixture of American political life. I’m sure this will never be abused: unrestrained power exercised in secret has a very noble history in the U.S. (Reuters says that the only American they could confirm on the hit list is Awlaki, though Dana Priest reported last year that either three or four Americans were on a hit list).

Anyway, look over there: wasn’t it outrageous how George Bush imprisoned people without any due process and tried to seize unrestrained power, and isn’t it horrifying what a barbaric death cult Republicans are for favoring executions even when there’s doubt about guilt? Even for those deeply cynical about American political culture: wouldn’t you have thought a few years ago that having the President create a White House panel to place Americans on a CIA hit list — in secret, without a shred of due process — would be a bridge too far?

Read the whole article: http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/06/execution_by_secret_wh_committee/singleton/

[leftstreet]

1. K&R

:grr:

[Capitalocracy]

2. Even if you think we need an enlightened despot to protect us

and that Barack Obama is that person and would never abuse such authority, until we get rid of term limits, elections, and human mortality, guess what? Whoever we decide should be given the authority to do this now won't be president in a few short years!

[Uncle Joe]

7. Exactly, there will be some evil people coming to power at some point and how many times

have political opponents accused each other of treason?

Would anyone trust a President Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh to make those kind of secret, non-judicial, life and death decisions affecting American citizens?

And before you laugh, the nation has already abandoned the Geneva Conventions and embraced torture/war crimes under Cheney/Bush, the same acts for which we prosecuted the Japanese during WWII.

[Nye Bevan]

3. Sadly, many DUers are entirely comfortable with Obama having that kind of power.

They don't seem farsighted enough to realize that it will be hard for them to oppose a Republican President like Perry from having this same power in the future.

[ProSense]

4. I

"Sadly, many DUers are entirely comfortable with Obama having that kind of power."

...have no problem with it because this is simply another lame attempt to conflate Americans with terrorists.

From the OP:

So a panel operating out of the White House — that meets in total secrecy, with no known law or rules governing what it can do or how it operates — is empowered to place American citizens on a list to be killed by the CIA, which (by some process nobody knows) eventually makes its way to the President, who is the final Decider.

What nonsense.

Someone decides everything, that doesn't mean it's a secret panel. When has national security decisions ever been discussed in public?

Do we know who makes every decision in the government and when it's made?

The media is playing this to drum up outrage.

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.

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

[Nye Bevan]

5. I don't have a problem with "national security decisions" being made in secret.

When those "national security decisions" are orders to summarily execute US citizens, then I *do* have a problem.

[ProSense]

8. Conversely

"When those 'national security decisions' are orders to summarily execute US citizens, then I *do* have a problem."

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

[Cali_Democrat]

12. And accusing someone of being a terrorist is not an excuse to trample over the Constitution.

[ProSense]

14. Well

"And accusing someone of being a terrorist is not an excuse to trample over the Constitution."

...is treason defined in the Constitution?

Are you saying he wasn't a terrorist?

I have no sympathy for terrorists!

[Cali_Democrat]

15. Well

"Are you saying he wasn't a terrorist"

...according the the assassination panel, he is and he deserved summary execution despite the fact the he was a US citizen. Of course there's no official record of the evidence presented to the panel. There's also no record of the decisions the panel makes. BTW, are there laws that govern the panel's existence and what rules they must abide by? Or is that secret as well?

[ProSense]

16. Well,

...according the the assassination panel, he is and he deserved summary execution despite the fact the he was a US citizen. Of course there's no official record of the evidence presented to the panel. There's also no record of the decisions the panel makes. BTW, are there laws that govern the panel's existence and what rules they must abide by? Or is that secret as well?

...I was asking you, not the panel. Are you saying he wasn't a terrorist?

[Cali_Democrat]

17. Well,

http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/06/execution_by_secret_wh_committee/singleton/

The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks.

But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki’s hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy.

For instance, one plot in which authorities have said Awlaki was involved Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner on Christmas Day 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underpants.

There is no doubt Abdulmutallab was an admirer or follower of Awlaki, since he admitted that to U.S. investigators. . . . But at the time the White House was considering putting Awlaki on the U.S. target list, intelligence connecting Awlaki specifically to Abdulmutallab and his alleged bomb plot was partial. Officials said at the time the United States had voice intercepts involving a phone known to have been used by Awlaki and someone who they believed, but were not positive, was Abdulmutallab.

...the secretive assassination panel made it's decision. BTW, who is on that panel? Are they qualified to make decisions that determine whether or not an American citizen dies without due process?

[ProSense]

19. I

"...the secretive assassination panel made it's decision. BTW, who is on that panel? Are they qualified to make decisions that determine whether or not an American citizen dies without due process? "

...suspect that you can't say that he was or was not a terrorist because that would destroy your premise.

As I said regarding the panel claim, it's nonsensical.

Someone decides everything, that doesn't mean it's a secret panel. When has national security decisions ever been discussed in public?

Do we know who makes every decision in the government and when it's made?

The media is playing this to drum up outrage.

[Cali_Democrat]

20. I

"The media is playing this to drum up outrage"

...think you're focused on the wrong things. When it comes to the summary execution of an American citizen without trial, transparency is paramount.

[Ignis]

21. "Are you saying he wasn't a terrorist?" How the fuck should we know?

You just got through telling us that national security decisions must be made in secret, and now you're hectoring another DUer to make a call on whether or not a fellow American citizen is a "terrorist"--and thus, has no right to face his accusers, have a trial by jury, etc. All we know is what you know: He was an American citizen that was put on the CIA "Assassination Watch List."

So which is it--rule by fiat in a "Daddy Knows Best" authoritarian wet dream, or rule of law in a democracy?

[Cali_Democrat]

22. It makes no sense. Apparently we should trust the government when they say he's a terrorist

Even though much of the evidence and the "national security decisions" are kept secret.

[ProSense]

28. No

"It makes no sense. Apparently we should trust the government when they say he's a terrorist"

...just make sense and an argument that doesn't require talking in ridiculous circles.

[Cali_Democrat]

31. No

"just make sense and an argument that doesn't require talking in ridiculous circles"

...apparently secret panels and secret evidence used to assassinate a US citizen without due process is OK with you.

Shocking.

Not.

[ProSense]

26. Hmmmm?

"'Are you saying he wasn't a terrorist?' How the fuck should we know?"

So you don't know if he was a terrorist, but object to him being treated like one?

The entire premise of these arguments is stupid!

[Ignis]

34. Yes, that's exactly right. We have laws and courts for a reason.

I don't know if he was a terrorist.
You don't know if he was a terrorist.
He hasn't been convicted of terrorism.

Given the above, OF COURSE I don't support the summary execution of an American citizen.

[sabrina 1]

23. Are YOU saying he WAS? Present the evidence please.

This is America, we do not just take the word of a US President that someone is guilty.

Btw, did you support this when Bush was president?

[Ignis]

24. +1 for "did you support this when Bush was president?"

[sabrina 1]

29. I'm not expecting an answer though. I keep asking, hoping someone

will answer who now supports it. That would at least show some consistency even if it is wrong. But I have been able to find out if those who now support this policy also supported Bush.

[Ignis]

35. The core of this ridiculous argument is a slavering devotion to authority.

If President Bush says American citizen Mr. Smith is a terrorist, why then, Smith MUST be a terrorist.
If President Obama says American citizen Mr. Smith is a terrorist, why then, Smith MUST be a terrorist.
If Mayor Giuliani says American citizen Mr. Smith is a terrorist, why then, Smith MUST be a terrorist.
If Sheriff Arpaio says American citizen Mr. Smith is a terrorist, why then, Smith MUST be a terrorist.

Likewise...
If President Bush says there are WMD in Iraq, why then, there MUST be WMD in Iraq. Invade away!

:puke:

Just another episode of "Daddy Knows Best."

[sabrina 1]

37. Sad, isn't it? But I do think there is hope outside of the

partisan political world which imo, is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the average American and which may be on the way to becoming history. People had no voice, so we were stuck listening to the most partisans voices from both sides. Now, it seems, the people are rejecting those voices and it's about time.

[ProSense]

30. Hmmmm?

"Are YOU saying he WAS? Present the evidence please. Btw, did you support this when Bush was president?"

Can you present evidence that any of the non-Americans terrorists are really terrorist?

I never shed a single tear when terrorists were killed during the Bush adminstration, and I'm not going to start now.

[sabrina 1]

33. Finally a semblance of an answer. So you supported Bush

claims that the POTUS should be given the power of a king? You disagree with what constitutes this democracy, three equal branches of government, none with more power than the other?

Did you make that argument on Democratic boards for Bush? I'm wondering because I never once saw any Democrat do so on any of the Democratic boards I was a member of.

[EFerrari]

9. Your distinction between Americans and terrorists is not one Obama makes.

Of course it's a secret panel, unaccountable to the public. And Obama has claimed he is not obligated to disclose the list or the evidence that led those names to be put on it to any court.

It is nonsense and it is Obama's nonsense. It sounds, of course, more like the old Soviet or like East Germany or North Korea more than it sounds like America. That is what you are minimizing.

And in fact, the media is NOT playing it up. They fell all over themselves to praise the killing of the terrorist, as is every single Republican candidate.

[sabrina 1]

25. Who made it legal to go over the heads of Congress and our court

system to order the Death Penalty for an American Citizen? Where was the evidence? What did he do? A terrorist worthy of the death penalty must have done something we can look at, there must be evidence proving his role in a terrorist act. Just saying 'he was involved' with no proof, is simply ridiculous.

[midnight]

40. Who did make this legal?

[libodem]

6. Peace Grannies better look out

It won't always be a nice Democrat at home in the White House. Funny who is spied on, listened to, and drone missiled.

[provis99]

10. what ninny handwringing.

Can Greenwald name a single President who hasn't had someone killed in an extrajudicial fashion?

[EFerrari]

11. Can you name one that operated global death squads

and claimed it was legal?

[sabrina 1]

27. You can be sure that Greenwald is not just opposed to this act, he

is consistent. He opposed it when Bush claimed the right to do it. As did the 'left' in general. How about you? Did you support Bush's claims of the powers of a king going to a US President.

Explain how this is Constitutional?

[Solly Mack]

13. K&R

[Eddie Haskell]

18. Dancin on the ruins of The Bill of Rights

[Odin2005]

32. As another DU said, it's a modern day Star Chamber.

[bluestate10]

36. Cry me a river. Three bastards died last week. Humankind moved forward. nt

[sabrina 1]

38. And what crimes did they commit that warranted the Death Penalty

with no judicial review? Can you link to the charges, the evidence, because I have failed to find anything at all to justify this. And since I'm not a rightwinger, I like to think we as a nation must have credible evidence of an actual crime, especially when we are prepared to give up all Constitutional rights to kill someone, before blindly accepting that our government would not do anything wrong. Kings did this sort of thing, but back then, people had no say in these things. We are no longer under monarchical rule so you must have seen something most of us have not yet seen, to be able to support this.

[L. Coyote]

39. Let's name this the "Jury of Your Peers Committee" so we are sure to be within

the letter of the Constitution :rofl:

[sabrina 1]

41. Good one!

Although I think the balance is tilted a little in our favor at this point.