Presidental Assassinations Of U.S. Citizens

[spiritual_gunfighter]

Glenn Greenwald
January 27th 2010

The Washington Post's Dana Priest today reports that "U.S. military teams and intelligence agencies are deeply involved in secret joint operations with Yemeni troops who in the past six weeks have killed scores of people." That's no surprise, of course, as Yemen is now another predominantly Muslim country (along with Somalia and Pakistan) in which our military is secretly involved to some unknown degree in combat operations without any declaration of war, without any public debate, and arguably (though not clearly) without any Congressional authorization. The exact role played by the U.S. in the late-December missile attacks in Yemen, which killed numerous civilians, is still unknown.

But buried in Priest's article is her revelation that American citizens are now being placed on a secret "hit list" of people whom the President has personally authorized to be killed:

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. . . .

The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, "it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them," a senior administration official said. "They are then part of the enemy."

Both the CIA and the JSOC maintain lists of individuals, called "High Value Targets" and "High Value Individuals," whom they seek to kill or capture. The JSOC list includes three Americans, including Aulaqi, whose name was added late last year. As of several months ago, the CIA list included three U.S. citizens, and an intelligence official said that Aulaqi's name has now been added.

Indeed, Aulaqi was clearly one of the prime targets of the late-December missile strikes in Yemen, as anonymous officials excitedly announced -- falsely, as it turns out -- that he was killed in one of those strikes.

Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." They're entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration's policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges -- based solely on the President's claim that they were Terrorists -- produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn't Obama's policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind -- not imprisoned, but killed -- produce at least as much controversy?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Doesn't that make us "terrorists" too?

[ixion]

10. The US is the largest state-sponsor of terror in the World

so, yes, yes it does.

[babylonsister]

2. If a US citizen joins Al Qaeda, should they be coddled? Rescued? nt

[Mindependant]

3. Traitors

No coddling or rescued. They gave up citizenship when
they joined Al Qaeda. They should be executed for treason
during war.

[denverbill]

6. Accusation=guilt? Personally, I think you are al-Quaida. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. You think maybe we can walk up to a terrorist training camp in Yemen

to serve an arrest warrant?

If the guy is picked up in the US, or some other coutry, by the police then by all means prosecute in the courts. If they guy is in an Al Queda camp, consorting with known terrorists, doesn't that make him a terrorist?

For that matter, if he is captured by the military, in a military operation, bring him back and try him. I think that ALL captured terrorists should be tried in court. But if he wants to martyr himself, go down fighting, why not oblige him?

[closeupready]

19. Nice how you manage to twist the meaning of the original article.

n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. Actually, the article is twisting itself into knots for a particular desired result.

"Both the CIA and the JSOC maintain lists of individuals, called "High Value Targets" and "High Value Individuals," whom they seek to kill or capture."

See that? "...kill or capture." This is not talking about walking up behind a suspect an putting two in the brain pan from behind. "Target" mean that are on a 'wanted' list. Think about it. Which has a better PR? Murdering some guy on the streets of Paris, or arresting him and putting him on trial? The 'kill' option would only be used when that person is in the company of known terrorists in a place where he cannot be reached by any law enforcement - such as an Al Queda camp - where his simply being there is evidence enough of his complicity in a terrorist organization.

The original article is a bullshit piece designed to make the government look like assassins. When you kill an enemy soldier who is in his own camp, that is not assassination. It is warfare - asymmetrical as it may be.

The 'war on terror' may be bullshit, but the war against terrorists is not.

[closeupready]

22. Is it right to deny due process to US citizens accused of being terrorists?

I think I'm done with this thread.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. Were bonnie and clyde denied due process when they were ambushed?

Again, it is not like assassination squads are out hunting down accused bad guys in friendly countries. These guys are on 'wanted' lists, to be arrested if possible, but 'wanted dead or alive' if they are only to be found in inaccessible places, like TERRORIST CAMPS. This is NOT putting a bullet in someone's head in Cincinatti. If these guys want to leave the terrorist camps to come in and talk to the FBI, they'll get all the due process they want.

[closeupready]

24. Not with a bang but a whimper.

n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Fine. How would YOU deal with an American who has known terrorist

connections, who is living at a foreign terrorist compound, and radio traffic indicates persons at that compound are planning a terror attack in the near future?

These are people who have quite literally declared war on the US and on Western culture. This person has opted to join them. How do YOU deal with it?

[closeupready]

26. Demand that authorities arrest/stop the camp, or else declare war on that state and invade.

Short of success with regard to either of those choices, we certainly must have people all over the world who can assist in the abduction of such people and bringing them to justice.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. "...people all over the world..."

Those are exactly the people the article is talking about. Their mission is to get the guy - capture if possible, kill if necessary, but STOP the terror plot.

The article is spun in such a way as to make assassination their entire purpose for being. Unlike the Cheney assassination squads - who (reportedly) operated without the consent or knowledge of the countries they operated in, and operated in friendly countries where the police could be counted on to help capture the accused terrorists - the mission described in the article, even through the spin, is to "kill or capture" and that there are a very few Americans on that list who, being on the list, would be immediately arrested if they were in any place where they COULD be arrested. Seeing as how there are so few on the list, it isn't just an arbitrary knock-off-anyone-suspicious list; there are thousands who are on terror watch lists, and do-not-fly lists, and persons-of-interest lists. These are the VERY few who they have enough evidence gathered against them to wind up on THIS list of people who are an imminent danger - like the FBI's most wanted, armed and dangerous, you can't expect to be able to just pick them up. Like - as I posted above - Bonnie and Clyde. They are committed to not being caught. Arrest and trial is, of course, always preferable but sometimes you just can't take them alive, and any attempt to do so can be extraordinarily dangerous.

They are international criminals, not unlike members of the drug cartels. You can't expect to see every one of them in the docket.

[Vincardog]

15. What is your Mindependant on? It is clearly not the rule of law or any American beliefs. Sir

have you no shame?

[closeupready]

4. You believe US citizens should not be tried? Way to go, babylonsister.

:mad:

[babylonsister]

7. I didn't say that. But how do we even know citizens are participating

until after the fact, and sometimes not even then more than likely?

And please don't put words in my mouth.

[closeupready]

8. Well, I apologize. But I would like you to explain yourself.

Can you please flesh out your initial post here? Thanks in advance.

[ixion]

11. Nothing for just joining, tried by a court of law if they do something bad

just as it has been, at least until the so-called 'war' on terror began.

[tavalon]

12. No, arrested and subjected to our very capable legal system

This should always have been dealt with as a crime and dealt with not with military might but the strength of our Constitution.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

16. I guess according to you they should be assassinated

in their homes without due process. Are you aware of the amount of "terrorists" who sit in Gitmo who had committed no acts of terror at all? But I guess it doesn't matter to you, if our government says they are terrorist we should just kill them!

Disgusting really.

[closeupready]

18. self-delete

self-delete

[dbonds]

5. That sent a cold chill down my back.

Secret execution squads that can also target American citizens if they THINK they are AQ. No trial, no justice, just bang bang your dead.

[closeupready]

9. Astounding that someone who called himself a "Constitutional law scholar"

signs on to a method which denies due process to US citizens. I just can't get over that.

[tavalon]

13. I've had a lot of those "what the fuck" moments

over the last year.

[DisgustedInMN]

14. ...move along..

... move along... move along..

... nothin' ta see here..

(That is :sarcasm:, just in case the really clueless didn't realize it.)

[bertman]

21. This just highlights how easily normal, rational Americans can be quickly converted to

fearful, death-to-"terrorists"-at-any-cost supporters of covert military/intelligence assassination policies.

Congressman A and Senator B are "briefed" by our military/intelligence experts as to how insidious and deceitful and inhuman our terrorist enemies are. They bring out pictures of murdered men, women, children; they show bombings; they show videos of al Qaeda training its forces; they show interrogations of unrepentant insurgents. Then they tell Congressman A and Senator B that we cannot even HOPE to win against these evil, international terrorists unless we adopt policies and actions that are well, terroristic in and of themselves.

They tell Congressman A and Senator B that unless they approve of these methods the blood of innocents will be on their hands. They warn them that our civilization is at stake. They tell them that they are responsible for the safety of Americans and only through harsh actions can they protect America.

The men and women who do the briefing are career intelligence and military types who have "gravitas". Their cred is their experience and their inside knowledge of how to deal with our enemies. They are individuals with powerful personalities who can strike the fear of God into the hearts of our elected representatives. At every opportunity, our leaders are exposed to these individuals or others who are clones of them. They all have the same mindset and the same message.

Unless Congressman A and Senator B are very well acquainted with this methodology and this psychological tactic they will succumb.

When Congressman A and Senator B walk out of the briefing they have usually been converted to the new American system of Imperial Rule. If not after the first briefing, then after several, they will be proponents of the kinds of abuses that have been becoming commonplace over the last decade.

The icing on the cake is when Congressman A and Senator B are informed that because they are now members of the "inner circle" of those who know the Real Truth, they are compelled by national security interests to remain silent about what they are allowing to be done in the name of preserving the Constitution of the United States of America.