Greenwald: Western justice and transparency

[whatchamacallit]

That, of course, is the heart and soul of this administration’s mentality when it comes to such matters, and why not? Between Republicans who always cheer on the killing of Muslims with or without any explanation or transparency, and Democrats who do so when their leader is the assassin, there is little political pressure to explain themselves. If anything, this planned “disclosure” makes the problem worse, since we will now have the spectacle of Eric Holder, wallowing in pomp and legal self-righteousness, finally defending the power that Obama already has seized — to assassinate U.S. citizens in secret and with no checks — but concealing what is most needed: evidence that Awlaki was what the U.S. Government claims he is. That simply serves to reinforce the message this Government repeatedly sends: as Marcy puts it, “We can kill you and we’ll never have to prove that doing so was just. You’ll just have to trust us!” The Yemen expert Gregory Johnsen added: “The US legal opinion on Awlaki is one thing, but it rests on assumptions made by the intelligence community, which won’t be revealed.”

Haters can crap all over the messenger, but the question remains; Why would anybody, especially democrats, be down with this?

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/23/western_justice_and_transparency/singleton/

[russspeakeasy]

1. Oh, shit, here we go again...All of the haters will be logging on.

[Robb]

2. Everything in Somalia is "extrajudicial."

Or did you not notice on your last vacation there?

[Poll_Blind]

10. So...just grease 'em all?

[Robb]

11. Killing is bad. That's not the article's argument.

The article speaks against extrajudicial action, which is an absurd point to make in a discussion of Somalia.

It would be like arguing we're not doing enough to support opposition parties in Eritrea.

[cpwm17]

47. What does Somalia have to do with anything

Is it one of those places where the people are no longer human? Our involvement there has caused so much misery for the Somalis. In 2006 Bush hired Ethiopia to overthrow the Somali Government. At that time they had just gotten the war-lords under control. Thanks to Bush, Somalia has been one of the world's worst places to live ever since.

Now, Obama thinks it's appropriate to murder Somalis with drones.

The Somalis might want to use some of those drones to take out some of the terrorists that have caused so much havoc in Somalia.

[msanthrope]

50. What does Somalia have to do with anything??? Try reading the article. nt

[Robb]

51. The gentleman in the article was killed in Somalia.

Bilal al Berjawi, apparently at some point a British national, hence Greenwald's attention, I think. Formerly right-hand-man to Fazul Mohammed, who you'll be glad to know the Somalis got last summer. At a checkpoint outside Mog, probably within yards of the site of Berjawi's last moments on earth.

For the record, I'm no fan of Bush foreign policy, but let's not revise history to suggest Somalia was "under control" any time in the last 20 years. Ethiopia's efforts may have been paltry, but they are still there fighting. So is, thankfully and finally, Kenya.

[JoePhilly]

3. I hear Obama also kicks puppies competitively for distance and accuracy!

This one allegedly flew 30 feet, did a flip, and then landed in a glass of water!!!

[whatchamacallit]

7. Your obsequiousness is an inspiration to freedom loving people everywhere

[JoePhilly]

9. But more importantly ...

I do think that manufactured outrage widgets (tm) that appear here on DU on a regular basis could significantly improve the US economy and potentially solve world hunger.

[whatchamacallit]

12. Yeah man?

Well neither will endless fucking war. You're not doing democrats any favors by dismissing real issues as "outrage widgets".

[JoePhilly]

13. Claiming Obama is free to "assassinate Americans" should be dismissed ... its BS.

You are not doing Democrats a favor by pretending that claim is true.

If it were true, neither YOU not Glen could say so out loud.

Bottom line ... this is an outrage widget. Manufactured and sold on the blogosphere to attract eye balls.

[whatchamacallit]

16. The administration's position and actions to date indicate it *is* true

Your unsubstantiated denial is worth squat. We could end the debate if the administration was willing to provide some evidence for these assassinations. "Just because we say so" may be good enough for the average JoePhilly, but I require more to support this crap.

[msanthrope]

22. So the assassination of Osama lacked enough evidence for you? nt

[JoePhilly]

29. +1

[whatchamacallit]

32. Tangential

Putting aside any issues I may have with the way we handled OBL, when we're talking american citizens alleged to be combatants, the standard should by higher than "trust us".

[msanthrope]

37. You think Osama is tangential to a discussion of the AUMF of 9/18/2001? Is it because it kinda

blows your point up?

[whatchamacallit]

39. Neither Osama or the AUMF are relevant to the OP

Did you bother to read it?

[msanthrope]

42. Um, what? How do you not know the legal basis for targeted/drone killings?

Are you seriously arguing that the legal basis for a governmental action is not relevant to an article about said governmental action?

Are you seriously arguing that Osama Bin Laden is not relevant to a discussion of Al Qaeda????

Inconvenient facts, certainly....

[SunsetDreams]

44. Wow couldn't have said it better msanthrope

Totally agree with your point.

[whatchamacallit]

46. If that's true

i pity your debating skills.

[msanthrope]

49. Must you insult my gender with that word? Try reading the AUMF

and you might have a better handle on what it means.

[whatchamacallit]

52. I have. Why do you keep blathering about the AUMF?

If the right to assassinate american citizens suspected of being EC was explicit in the AUMF, Obama wouldn't have needed a secret OCL memorandum drawn. Get a clue.

[msanthrope]

53. The OCL [sic] memo you describe outlines the President's powers granted by AUMF. OLC memos don't

grant authority. Acts of Congress, like the AUMF, do.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

4. Because a Democrat is doing it, plain and simple.

Hey, you asked.

For 8 years, I marched with tens of thousands of people who were (allegedly) against just this sort of thing. I thought many (most?) of them were Democrats. I was apparently wrong. Very, very, sadly, wrong.

[msanthrope]

6. Sorry, but I would have been perfectly fine with Mr. Bush drone striking AlQaeda rather than

marching us into Iraq.

He could have blown Tora Bora to kingdom come, and I would have supported that.

[whatchamacallit]

8. Of course your response avoids the relevant issues

of legality, due process, and government transparency.

[msanthrope]

15. Well, perhaps you can tell us how just how the AUMF of September 18, 2001,

was illegal, denied due process to Al Qaeda, or otherwise violated 'government transparency?'

Because, you see, some of us realized that Congress declared war that day. On AlQaeda. A decade plus ago.

If you are a member of that organization, chances are high that a drone strike is gonna target you. And the President is authorized to do this by the Congress.

Are you really suggesting that Mr. Bush could not have struck Tora Bora? That it would have been an illegal act?

[whatchamacallit]

17. I'm talking about american citizens

not drones.

[msanthrope]

20. Nice avoidance of the Tora Bora question. As for american citizens, kindly point to the law

you think exempts american citizens from being treated as a combatant when they are members of an organization we are at war with?

You might recall the Civil War. Tell us how the soldiers of the South were mistreated?

[msanthrope]

5. I am totally down with the US blowing up the guy who tried to get Flt 253 blown up. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

14. Allegedly

Awlaki was never indicted and the US govt presented no official evidence that he was connected to flight 253 or the Fort Hood attacks.

Therein lies the problem. When the US government fails to release evidence and then summarily executes the suspect (a US citizen), they essentially want the citizens of the USA to trust their judgment.

No thanks. I don't trust the US government, especially the folks in the military and at the FBI and CIA.

No way. Let's see the evidence.

[msanthrope]

18. 'Allegedly' like Osama. And we didn't need an indicment to get either one of 'em.

Join al-Qaeda, you will be targeted. It's amazingly simple.

[whatchamacallit]

21. "amazingly simple"

is a good description of your reasoning. "Hey look a drone just took out msanthrope's house, obviously he joined al-Qaeda!"

[msanthrope]

25. Still can't answer the Tora Bora question, or the AUMF one either, can you?

I don't think Al-Qaeda is recruiting women, so I think I'm safe....

[whatchamacallit]

27. Laws or not, you're only as safe as elements in the government decide

Apparently, just the way you like it.

[Robb]

33. OK, wait a second.

"Laws or not, you're only as safe as elements in the government decide."

I thought upthread you wanted evidence presented? Now you're saying laws don't matter? How about evidentiary law?

[whatchamacallit]

34. What I'm saying is

if the government feels no obligation to prove anything, what protection do laws provide? This is a very scary place to be. If a republican president were taking these liberties you'd probably be whistling a different tune.

[msanthrope]

38. As I said, still can't answer the Tora Bora or the Osama questions, can you? nt

[whatchamacallit]

40. You're barking up a tree you planted

I don't see how your question relates to the concerns in the article.

[Cali_Democrat]

23. Trust and obey. n/t

[Robb]

19. Half right, actually.

He was indicted in two countries in 2010 and 2011; neither of them happened to be the US.

But you've been told this before.

(They were Yemen and the U.K.)

Edited again to add: I also forgot he was charged and pleaded guilty to soliciting a prostitute in 1996 and 1997 in San Diego. He was also charged with passport fraud in 2002, but it appears he beat that on a statute of limitations issue. None of which is relevant to your point, but I found interesting.

[Cali_Democrat]

24. IMO, it's not OK for the US govt to execute its own citizens based on indictments in other countries

Yemen of all places? Not exactly a beacon of peace, prosperity, freedom and justice. Have we reached the point where we execute US citizens based on evidence presented by 3rd world dictatorships?

Frankly, IMO it's not OK for the US govt to summarily execute their own citizens PERIOD.

[Robb]

26. Is the UK a "3rd world dictatorship"?

Besides, my point is chiefly that you continue to run with "never charged" when you've been shown repeatedly that it's an inaccurate statement.

I'd suggest "charged, never convicted," because it's correct, and can make your argument seem more honest.

[Cali_Democrat]

28. I was referring to Yemen

The UK is not a 3rd world dictatorship, but you apparently skimmed over the title of my previous post:

"IMO, it's not OK for the US govt to execute its own citizens based on indictments in other countries"

Now do you understand my position? Or would you like more clarification?

[Robb]

30. OK, I apologize. I'll ignore points made in the body text of your posts in the future

...and concentrate on the headlines. They are shorter.

[Cali_Democrat]

31. You do what you want

I really don't care...LOL

[FarLeftFist]

35. HOLY SHAT THE GUY WAS A FREAKING TERRORIST. GET OVER IT.

[whatchamacallit]

36. Are you certain?

If not, do you care?

[msanthrope]

41. Yeah--the evidence presented in Rajib Karim's trial was compelling. Abdulmutallab's

allocution left little doubt as to what Awlaki was. That, and the Youtube videos of Awlaki advocating on behalf of alQaeda.

[FarLeftFist]

43. Yes, there are videotaped confessions.

[EFerrari]

48. Seriously, screw the rule of law and due process. The government says he was a terrorist and that

should be good enough for anyone.

[_ed_]

55. Exactly!!!

Hey, the government TOLD us he's a terrorist, so that's all I need to hear. I trust Obama, so I don't need evidence. That's the basis of American laws: trusting politicians like a bunch of infants.

And when President Gingrich does this, of course I won't say a word because I'll trust him, too.

[SidDithers]

54. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid