Olbermann on Obama's assassination program

[Jefferson23]

Thursday, Apr 8, 2010

By Glenn Greenwald

There are many legitimate criticisms voiced about Keith Olbermann, but he deserves substantial credit for his coverage last night of a story that is as self-evidently significant as it is under-covered: Barack Obama's assassination program aimed at American citizens. He not only led off his show with this story, but devoted the first two segments to it, and made many of the key observations and asked virtually all of the right questions. The videos of those two segments, worth watching, are below.

What's most striking to me about all of this is that -- as I noted yesterday (and as Olbermann stressed) -- George Bush's decision merely to eavesdrop on American citizens without oversight, or to detain without due process Americans such as Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, provoked years of vehement, vocal and intense complaints from Democrats and progressives. All of that was disparaged as Bush claiming the powers of a King, a vicious attack on the Constitution, a violation of Our Values, the trampling on the Rule of Law. Yet here you have Barack Obama not merely eavesdropping on or detaining Americans without oversight, but ordering them killed with no oversight and no due process of any kind. And the reaction among leading Democrats and progressives is largely non-existent, which is why Olbermann's extensive coverage of it is important. Just imagine what the reaction would have been among progressive editorial pages, liberal opinion-makers and Democratic politicians if this story had been about George Bush and Dick Cheney targeting American citizens for due-process-free and oversight-less CIA assassinations.

Continue reading
Republicans are not going to object to any of this. With rare exception, they believe in unlimited executive authority and denial of due process. They see Obama's adoption of the core Bush/Cheney approach as a vindication of what they did for eight years (and also see it, not unreasonably, as proof that progressive complaints about Bush's "shredding of the Constitution" were not genuine but rather opportunistic, cynical and motivated by desire for partisan gain). As a result, even the most Obama-hating right-wing extremists will praise him and cheer for what he's doing. At the same time, the people who spent eight years screaming about things like this (when Bush/Cheney were doing them) are now mostly silent if not finding ways to justify and defend it (we don't need due process because the President said this is an American-Hating Terrorist). As White House servant Richard Wolffe said in the second Olbermann segment below (and Wolffe's commentary was actually fairly good), the White House is "very proud" of its presidential assassination program, which is likely why they decided to leak it to the NYT and the WP yesterday.

Here again, we see one of the principal and longest-lasting effects of the Obama presidency: to put a pretty, eloquent, progressive face on what (until quite recently) was ostensibly considered by a large segment of the citizenry to be tyrannical right-wing extremism (e.g., indefinite detention, military commissions, "state secrets" used to block judicial review, an endless and always-expanding "War on Terror," immunity for war criminals, rampant corporatism -- and now unchecked presidential assassinations of American citizens), and thus to transform what were once bitter, partisan controversies into harmonious, bipartisan consensus:


remainder in full: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

[BeFree]

1. absolute power

The republicans opened the door to this and Obama walked in the room.

Of course America, in many venues, has executed many in the pursuit of protection.

At least now the PTB are being honest? They have come right out and claimed their intention.

It is hoped that everyone remembers why we spend a trillion dollars a year on 'defense'. We don't expend those sums on flower gardens, we use that money to kill people. Hundreds of thousands have died at the hands of the defense department without the benefit of a judge or jury.

Obama is wrong to use the power this way. But he ain't the first, or the last.

[Jefferson23]

3. The Republicans have been expanding presidential power since Reagan,

and as you know, it gets worse with each new election cycle. One essential brake on this will come through
our court system and we must preserve the integrity of that vital institution. As it stands now, Kennedy was the key
vote to stop several insane wins for Bush, Hamdan case etc. Obama's next appointments must be carefully considered
to ensure we do not have justices who consistently defer to the president.

[smoogatz]

2. I suspect we did the same thing during the cold war.

Routinely. Sounds like the guy they're after in Yemen roundly deserves a bullet in the head, and the complications inherent in trying to extract him from that country in order to try him in the U.S. would render that course of action impractical, if not impossible--in any case it would put additional lives at risk. The other choice is to let him keep on keeping on. In Obama's position I'd probably make the same call--and I'd be pissed about the fact that it was leaked.

[Vinnie From Indy]

26. You have actually hit on the EXACT reason Obama's actions are so dangerous

The fact is that our political, military and intelligence leaders have killed Americans by the truckload in our history. What the Obama people have done is a step further. It seems the Obama people are OPENLY declaring that the President has this as a right of office and will use it whenever and wherever he pleases.

Americans need to ask themselves if they are ready to let the President have the right to kill you, your sons, daughters, mothers, fathers and any other American you have ever met AT HIS SOLE DISCRETION. It really is that simple.

[conscious evolution]

4. How people can think Obama

is on the side of we the people and the US Cnostitution makes my head hurt.

And he calls himself a Constitutional scholar.

[Jefferson23]

5. I'm not aware Obama ever referred to himself as a Constitutional scholar.

I know he lectured for 10 years, but, I appreciate what you are saying nonetheless.

[Berry Cool]

6. Greenwald has pissed me off sometimes with his criticism of Keith

(although I don't always agree with Keith either) but this time, his praise of him is right on.

It is just sad to see so many DU'ers signing on to the "my president, right or wrong" bandwagon.

And even sadder to know that some will label me an Obama hater for this. I am not an Obama hater and I do not come here posting negative stuff all the time about how terrible he is or how disillusioned I am about him or how I never liked him to begin with and this is why. On the contrary...I am mostly supportive of him and think he's done a lot of good. But this is wrong. This is the same old Bush crap about how it's more important for the president to "keep us safe" than it is to uphold the Constitution.

Yet, I have seen people here say that people who disagree with this policy have been so brain-damaged by Bush Derangement Syndrome that we simply can't understand anymore when our president simply has to, and is justified in doing something, to "keep us safe." We just hate anything anyone does that reminds us of Bush--even when it's something that "makes sense" or "is right."

You know what I see? I see people who seem to have decided that anything Obama does is right--even when it's like something Bush did.

And that's scary.

[bongobobtherealone]

8. Agreed!

I've been a lurking here for years and just started posting so I have to ask. Is Democratic (as in DU) like party or Democracy? I busted my but for Mr. pres. and am VERY disappointed with him as well as others with a D behind their name. I wonder if his campaign was one big con job as many have said, or was he told upon taking office how the game was played? While he has done some good things, I haven't seen the "Change" I worked or voted for!

[kimmerspixelated]

22. Remember the night he won?

There was a distinct strained look on his face. Stressed,sure, but ya gotta be tough to run for Prez, but with everything that's happened, I'm inclined to believe that he was told-"we'll let you win, but you gotta do this and that or else ". The PTB are huge and operate much like the mafia. And it could be that he's had to fight for the centrist bit every step of the way. We'll never know what goes on behind the gates of hell.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. I didn't see the Olberman piece, but I call bullshit.

This is NOT an 'assassination program'. It is dealing with an American terrorist, living amongst other terrorists in a nation where we have no arrest powers.

If he was living in the US, he'd be hunted down and arrested. He'd get all the due process anyone would want. But if he is in another country in a terrorist training camp and we don't have the authority or capability of arresting him but we DO have permission from the host country to attack the camp and take him and other terrorists out - we should NOT do so? We should let him just carry on plotting new attacks? Will we only get pissed off enough to do something when he does successfully bring down an airliner?

Of course the preference would be to bring him back for trial. But if that is not possible, then we do what IS possible.

This is NOT like Mossad assassinating a Palestinian diplomat on the streets of London, no matter how much some want to portray it as such.

[Doctor_J]

9. If he can be tracked down and assassinated, he can be

tracked down and brought to justice.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. How?

You realize that the 'assassinated' part indicates a strike by a Predator drone on his vehicle or domicile - not some guy walking up and putting two in the brain pan.

Say he is located at a camp in the Yemeni desert. How do you propose arresting him, surrounded by 150 AQ? You want to invade Yemen? Don't we have enough problems over there?

If he was on the streets of London, or Madrid, or anywhere else where there were reasonable alternatives this would not be an issue. The entire question is, how do we deal with known terrorists in hostile lands where we have no law enforcement capabilities, who happen to be Americans?

[Jefferson23]

10. "ordering them killed with no oversight and no due process of any kind"

That should be a problem for every American.


Jonathan Turley: snip* The story raises serious legal questions. It is one thing to kill an American in the course of a terrorist act or to prevent an imminent attack. It is quite another thing to kill someone suspected of terrorism without a trial. That would amount to the assassination of a citizen.

Once again, the Obama Administration appears to be following Bush policies. In late 2002, Kamal Derwish (aka Ahmed Hijazi), a U.S. citizen, was killed in an attack by a Hellfire missile fired by a Predator in Yemen. The U.S. knew it was killing a U.S. citizen because it was monitoring his phone at the time. We were targeting Al Qaeda figures. One of the men was Abu Ali al-Harithi, suspected of masterminding the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. After the attack, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions wrote a letter to the United States stating the attack “constitute a clear case of extrajudicial killing.”


http://jonathanturley.org/2010/02/04/is-the-obama-administration-targeting-americans/

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Define 'imminent'.

Do we know that al-Harithi was NOT seconds away from giving the 'go' order on a new attack? Even if the attack would not take place for six months, wouldn't his order make it imminent?

And was Derwish NOT hanging out with a man who was a self-proclaimed terrorist?

I see this as no different than a guy drawing down on a cop - he can EXPECT to get shot. If you join up with terrorists, you suffer their fate. Don't want to be killed with terrorists, don't hang out with them.

Seems rather self evident to me.

[Jefferson23]

14. I think one major flaw in your argument is the lack of

oversight, among other things. Would you be this trusting of the "facts" as presented if Bush were doing this?

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. Yeah, the cop on the street should always check in with his desk sergeant

before he shoots someone who is threatening the public.

This is made up nonsense. You think that a chain of command that goes all the way up to the President's desk is LACKING in oversight?

Claiming that Obama just said "Kill the mutherfuker" is ludicrous. This is about dealing with people who have declared war on US. It is about dealing with terrorists who cannot be arrested and brought to trial, and who are dangerous if left alone.

The order is 'capture or kill'. Killing would be a tactical victory, but capturing would be a far more valuable propaganda victory. Since he is hanging out with known terrorists, and has issued public statements praising terrorist acts and encouraging terrorist acts, the chances of him being acquitted in trial are below zero - this is not like most of Bush's accused terrorists. The ONLY way he could wind up on a 'capture or kill' list is if he was a KNOWN terrorist (though for legality's sake we say 'alleged', just as we say 'alleged' about OBL - it doesn't make the facts any less true).

Every time a cop goes to make an arrest, the intent is to capture - but the acknowledgment is that the suspect may refuse to be captured. Even if he KNOWS that the suspect will not be taken alive, he doesn't pass up the attempt to arrest. Same thing. "Capture or kill" means just that. If he can be gotten by capture, fine. But he's too dangerous to leave alone if capture is not possible, but killing is. Why do you think the feds shot John Dillinger without warning?

This is not a 'shoot on sight' order. It is not an assassination order. It is an order to get this guy, whatever means are necessary. Considering that he is hiding out in a foreign country where we have no police powers, our options are limited.

[Jefferson23]

16. I think you're making a lot of presumptions about what the facts are.

One thing to keep in mind is that when a president uses power like this, the next one, and there will be another
Republican president again...the expansion of presidential powers increases. That's not good for our country, and it is not representative
of our system of government.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. It is you who is making presumptions on what the facts are.

And you have most of the dead wrong.

[Jefferson23]

18. Yea, sure ok, me and Greenwald and Jonathan Turley have it all wrong..ok

[Bette Noir]

20. Oversight and due process is the key.

Could he be tried in absentia? Put the evidence against him before a jury, and let them decide whether he should be "taken out"?

From what I've heard about him, I'm not upset at the idea that he be taken out of circulation, but I only know what the media let me see.

[Jefferson23]

23. I'm not aware if he could be tried in absentia, I have read nothing that

indicates the president would use such a venue. One of my concerns is the evidence is not reviewed
through any due process, and if you look at the case Turley shows us, the law would seem pretty clear and straight forward.

*As reaffirmed in cases like Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), American citizens have the same protections regardless of whether they are without or outside of the country. In that case, two American women who murdered their husbands on American military bases abroad were given the same protections under the Fifth Amendment regardless of the fact that they were located and committed the crimes abroad.

[gentlegiant621]

28. Military bases abroad

are considered American soil, just as embassies are. American laws apply on American bases oversees, with the exception of military personnel, who are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and not the US Constitution, even within US borders.

[Jefferson23]

29. You're right, but my point was that there seems to be nothing that

indicates Obama would approach it that way. Nothing I have read anyway on the subject.

[mzmolly]

21. Thanks for some

clarity on this. :hi:

[amborin]

25. "terrorist" based on flawless evidence? do you know how the US

tortured Mr. Arar, based on flawed evidence

how can you be sure it's not flawed this time?

[Jefferson23]

11. I thought it note worthy to post a bit more from Turley on this subject:

snip** Such use of unilateral authority put the United States on shaky legal ground. The Annex to Hague Convention Number IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, has a provision that reads: “In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden … to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army … .” The provision is admittedly a bit vague when put into specific situations on a battlefield. However, the U.S. Army has interpreted this provision “as prohibiting assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy’s head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy “dead or alive.’” While the military believes it can target individual soldiers, the line between an assassination and legitimate killing has become more blurred with new technology like predators. What is not blurred are the rights of U.S. citizens.

As reaffirmed in cases like Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), American citizens have the same protections regardless of whether they are without or outside of the country. In that case, two American women who murdered their husbands on American military bases abroad were given the same protections under the Fifth Amendment regardless of the fact that they were located and committed the crimes abroad.

If a president can kill U.S. citizens abroad, why not within the United States? What is the limiting principle beyond the practicalities?

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/02/04/is-the-obama-administration-targeting-americans/

[Papa Boule]

19. DISGRACEFUL, the way threads on this subject get unrecced and kept low on the greatest page

n/t

[amborin]

24. K&R also to put a pretty face on rampant corporatism

[onpatrol98]

27. Torture versus Assassination

We've gone from bad to worse...even if we've always done it. It's probably not a good idea to be so proud of it and definitely not a reason to continue it.

[Jefferson23]

30. Is the CIA Assassination Order of a US Citizen Legal?

US officials have confirmed a Yemen-based Muslim cleric has become the first US citizen added to a CIA list of targets for capture or killing. Anwar al-Awlaki is a US-born cleric accused of having ties to the failed Christmas Day airline bombing and the shooting at Fort Hood. Many legal experts have questioned the legality of the assassination order under US and international law. We speak with Philip Alston, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions.

Guest:

Philip Alston, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions. He is also a professor of law at New York University and co-chair of the law school’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice.
JUAN GONZALEZ: US officials have confirmed a Yemen-based Muslim cleric has become the first US citizen added to a CIA list of targets for capture or killing. Anwar al-Awlaki is a US-born cleric accused of having ties to the failed Christmas Day airline bombing and the shooting at Fort Hood. Officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for a US citizen to be approved for assassination.


Earlier this year, the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, told the House Intelligence Committee US forces can assassinate citizens believed to be involved in a terrorist activity against the United States. Blair said, quote, “Being a US citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans.” He added, “We don’t target people for free speech; we target them for taking action that threatens Americans.”


AMY GOODMAN: Many legal experts have questioned the legality of the assassination order under US and international law.


We’re joined here in New York by Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions. Philip Alston is also a professor of law at New York University and co-chair of the school’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice.


Welcome to Democracy Now!, Professor Alston. What about this policy targeting al-Awlaki?


PHILIP ALSTON: Well, there’s a lot we don’t know about this particular case. We don’t know exactly what this man is accused of, which would make a very big difference in terms of working out what his role is, whether he can be considered to be actually engaged in some sort of armed conflict with the United States, whether he’s taken an active part in those hostilities.


The US government has merely indicated that, first, he is working with a group that is said to be affiliated with al-Qaeda. Now that raises fairly big problems already, but I’ll come back to that. Secondly, is he actually taking some sort of active part in hostilities? Is he just a propaganda man, or is he in fact doing the planning and really someone who is in the chain of command, as it were? If the latter, if he’s in the chain of command, then it becomes more feasible. If we then get to the situation that we agree that we’re in an armed conflict situation, that then takes us back, unfortunately, to the whole big question of what sort of conflict, what sort of war, is the United States engaged in, which would then justify targeting this individual, leaving aside his nationality, at least for a moment.


The administration, as we know, has come out in the last week or so with a new rationale. We have now dropped the global war on terror. That’s no longer being fought. Instead, the rationale is that this is the United States acting in self-defense post-9/11. So it’s invoking an international law doctrine which is designed to provide a single exception to the prohibition on the use of force. Post-World War II, the rule was a country cannot make war on another country. The exception is if it’s in self-defense. Now that’s usually defined as some sort of imminent attack going on, that you then are able to respond to. Clearly, that’s not really happening here, and it’s rather odd to invoke it for the first time some ten years after, nine years after 9/11.


But even then, if we accept that the United States is involved in some sort of armed conflict, the question is, can we attack Yemen? Well, the first issue, is there a request by the government of Yemen? The US seems to imply that they will not object, and that would get around that particular dilemma. But then you come to this particular individual. The big issue there is, is there an armed conflict going on in Yemen in which the United States is engaged? If there is, then if he’s taking part in hostilities, he would be a legitimate target. But if there’s not an armed conflict—and most observers would question whether there is a sort of ongoing armed conflict—then one would need to deal with him through other means. It’s not to say that the guy should be let to, you know, do what he’s doing, etc. We need to take every step that can be taken, but short of a targeted assassination, which is a really dramatic step.

remainder here: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/8/is_the_cia_assassination_order_of