Countdown: Former CIA Jack Rice - 'That's the Standard for Targeting an American?'

[Hissyspit]

Run time: 05:51 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDdWu6SmN3Y   Posted on YouTube: April 08, 2010 By YouTube Member: PoliticsNewsNews Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 08, 2010 By DU Member: Hissyspit Views on DU: 2266

 
MSNBC Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann -April 07, 2010: President Obama Authorizes Killing Of Muslim Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

RICE: "This is truly an extraordinary shift."

[Poll_Blind]

1. Very much worth watching- thank you for posting this! n/t

PB

[jgraz]

2. Completely fucking unacceptable.

How many of our core principles are we going to sacrifice for a fake feeling of security? I really thought Obama was better than this.

[vaberella]

4. Really?! Did you hear the end of it?!

If we have the information that states this guy is actually trying to kill us...then Obama's actions are right. I need more on this.

[jgraz]

5. You mean like we had information on Saddam's WMDs?

"Intelligence" is not a judicial system. This is fucking un-American. Period.

[vaberella]

8. Oh I'm aware of that. But I'm speaking on the guys last statement to Keith's last question. n/t

[jgraz]

10. Last I checked, ultimate power for our legal system is not vested in Jack Rice.

It's unclear to me what exactly he was saying at the end, but even if he said he was certain that Obama should kill al-Awlaki, that doesn't make it legal. Or right.

[grahamhgreen]

14. So you don't believe in due process, or trial by jury?

[jgraz]

25. Clearly, she neither believes in it nor understands it.

Another failure of the American educational system.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

31. Where is this hypothetical certainty coming from?

Do you remember in 1981 when Reagan bombed Gaddafi's house and he wasn't even there? How about that video they showed where innocent journalists were misidentified as violent terrorists? Do you remember a couple of years back when unmanned drones blew up a wedding in Afghanistan on God knows what justification, killing 40 civilians? How about in the late 90s when Clinton destroyed that medicine factory in Sudan, claiming it was manufacturing chemical weapons (that, btw, threw the whole nation into wave after wave of epidemics of easily curable diseases.) We are always acting on the premise that "we have information" that somebody is trying to kill Americans. We're just very rarely right.

I should also note that in American jurisprudence, we don't kill somebody on suspicion that they are going to commit a crime in the future.

[jgraz]

32. But...a former CIA agent and radio talk show host seemed to somewhat ambiguously approve of it!

That's gotta make it legal, right?

[vaberella]

3. So what I got from this is...Obama has the information that he is actively trying to kill Americans.

Then Obama's actions are justified?! Am I right or wrong here?!

[jgraz]

6. Yes, you are totally wrong.

There's this document called "The Constitution". You might want to familiarize yourself with it.

[vaberella]

7. I'm going by the ex-CIA guys statement in the video which you also commented on.

What did he say or are you playing deaf to his last statement?

[jgraz]

9. Do you understand our basic system of laws and justice? At all?

Have you heard of the Bill of Rights?

[vaberella]

11. Are you listening to what the guy just said.

He basically just throw the Bill of Rights in your face by his last statement. And that is what I was asking about. If you choose to ignore that with your other statements that's up to you. I wanted to know what the guy thought and that's what he said. I understand what you're saying but he basically gave me a fuck to the Constitution/Bill of Rights if the evidence supports the punishment. But you seem to intentionally ignore that.

[jgraz]

12. I really don't understand your point. Exactly what do you think he said?

His last point was unclear. Do you think he was saying that Obama *should* kill Americans if he feels like it?

[vaberella]

20. What was unclear about it?! Or do you want it to sound unclear?

It was rather clear from what I heard:

KO: And there's the Devil's Advocate question, assuming Awalaki is guilty and is actively trying to kill Americans not just advocating that, not just advocating that which is what he started at, but actually involved is this not exactly what the Obama administration should be doing?

ex-CIA JR: Absolutely. Again, assume is really the effective word here. We have to be able to make that call. We're not talking about wrapping him in a warm blanket and rocking him like a young child. We're talking about knowing what we're doing and ensuring that when we make a decision it's the right one. And that's what you and I are discussing right now.

KO: Jack Rice former special agent...

Now, explain to me, where you see UNCLEAR?! I mean I know I'm not deaf. Unless you chose to specifically ignore his statement. So in effect, you were pushing this interview which in the end basically says, that if Obama has enough evidence that supports his actions, then he is in the right of his actions. So as I stated, the guy would have thrown the Bill of Rights in your face since he would have ignored anything like that, by your estimation in case there is 100% evidence justifying this course of action.

[jgraz]

23. I just wanted to hear you say it explicitly...

because I can't believe a poster on this forum would advocate such a policy.

What's unclear about his statement is that it is completely incongruous with the entire rest of the interview. You seemed to miss the part where Rice said, "Because this is an American citizen, we need to think of it as one of our family members... This is literally targeting the American specifically and killing them. This CANNOT be done in this way. This is truly an extraordinary shift."

You chose to grab on to this last bit because it feeds into what clearly is your totalitarian, police-state, kill-em-all-and-let-God-sort-em-out mindset. That sort of attitude has no place in a Constitutional democracy. None. The fact that you can't understand that is incredibly disturbing.

[vaberella]

26. For fuck's sake...

There is nothing in my post to suggest that I advocate shit. My post clearly is me trying to make sense of what was being said. I clearly read and heard EVERYTHING that was said. He supports most of the claims on this site. And I fully understand that...however unlike you who blatantly disregarded his statement and went on this thing that it wasn't clear because you want to ignore it...Rice said and I quoted for you, that if there is evidence Obama's actions are justified. This is what I find interesting. To you that may not be interesting.

I find it interesting for one reason. Because of what you said before hand. If this is unconstitutional why did the guy say Obama would be justified in his actions if there is evidence. Until he clarifies his statement I'm going by what he said. You are saying something completely different and ignoring everything I'm saying. And acting as though I'm justifying something that I obviously find unusual in his statements when previously it was deemed unconstitutional. So it's only unconstitutional if unjustified.

And please don't project your on views on me. I don't appreciate making claims about who or what I am when they have no idea who I am...it just makes your argument weak because you feel a character assassination, of sorts, makes you feel better and puts you in the right.

[grahamhgreen]

15. His actions are againstthe founding principals of due process and the rule of law.

[vaberella]

21. Post # 20.

Apparently, this guy says otherwise towards the end and that is what I have been saying. So this is not against the rule of law considering the situation. I make no claims as to whether Obama's actions are wrong or right, but by what this guy just said, if Obama has the evidence, then he's not in the wrong --- if he made this decision which currently are speculations on action not yet proven.

[sabrina 1]

34. Well, if he meant that a president can just say 'I have the evidence'

with no public trial, and we just have to take his word for it, he is absolutely wrong. For one thing, presidents are not judges and juries. Where did he get that idea from? Some third world dictatorship?

But aside from that, the law is clear. Assassinations are against the law. There is a prohibition on them in this country

So sad to see that it would be Democratic president violating the law when even Republicans Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan wrote executive orders forbidding them. And every other president since Gerald Ford's executive order, has upheld the prohibition.

The fact that it is being discussed at all, is simply to get it into the dialogue and more acceptable to the public. This is how we slowly become a police state. Using 9/11 and 'FEAR', many immoral acts have been accepted by this country. What that says is that we were never really committed to the rule of law, to being a country that respected rights. Because if we were the reaction to anything like this, should simply be outrage at the very thought of it. No need to discuss it. We have laws that cover these crimes, if indeed there is a crime, but we don't know that until evidence i presented in the proper venue, which is a court of law in this country.

[grahamhgreen]

13. Shocking. The end of due process?

[chill_wind]

16. K & R. Richard Wollfe had some thought and commentary

too, after Rice. I hope that one shows up, too.

[Hissyspit]

17. Yes, he made some very important points. I wish they had not chopped that part off.

[chill_wind]

30. Glenn Greenwald has it at his site today.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/08/olbermann/index.html

This is John Brennan's show. "They are very proud of this program inside the White House."

[JDPriestly]

18. If this man has been accused of a crime, he has certain rights under

our Constitution. There is nothing more to say or think or do. The Constitution is our supreme law.

Article

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
. . . .

Article

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html

[Mithreal]

19. It's just paper and those aren't rights anymore, they're privileges.

[vaberella]

22. I think your loop whole falls here:

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger ---sometimes this is defined as a war, which would then mean the except part. Unless this is specifically dealing with military officers and not in military actions? Please clear that up for me. So then that would mean, not unconstitutional. I mean I could be wrong and interpreting what is said here. And is there another part of the constitution that addresses crimes of Treason?!

Here is what I gathered:

To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


So open court doesn't have to be open court if we have two Witnesses, the kid that was caught in the plane bombing attempt was said to be in association with this guy. I don't know if there were other witnesses or claims. If this kid and others provided evidence, then Congress can give the power to declare the punishment for treason. Which would then trump what was stated in your statement above. Remember this is not a normal crime and was said to be Treason in some of the articles discussing it. But I'm not constitutional lawyer.

[jgraz]

24. Don't quit your day gig.

Your skills as a Constitutional scholar leave much to be desired.

Look up the meaning of "testimony" and the rights given to the accused under our system of justice. "Testimony" does not mean "somebody just said something". It has to b given in a court of law, under penalty of perjury, with the right of the accuser to face the witness and cross-examine them. Otherwise, it is not "testimony".

Sheesh, you really want to give this president the right to kill Americans with impunity. Is it just because you idolize the current office-holder? Or are you cool with President Palin having the same powers?

[vaberella]

27. And read the post...Congress makes the decisions.

I didn't realize that Congress was a Judge. But then again I never made any claims that I understood the language. So your condescending response was fucking unnecessary.

I'm not giving the president the right to do anything he wants. I'm trying to understand the claims being made which I find confusing. You seem to think you know all and yet people seem to clearly contradict what your saying if I take Rice's statements into consideration.

If you're not going to be helpful, instead of choosing to throw character attacks and snide comments, just don't bother commenting.

[jgraz]

28. Uh huh. Like Glenn Beck, you're just asking questions.

Give me a fucking break. :eyes:

[vaberella]

29. I see you raed my other post.

Whatever...you can go away now.

[sabrina 1]

35. Read my post above. Assassinations are against U.S. law

Gerald For and Ronald Reagan wrote executive orders forbidding assassinations. Every president since then has upheld those laws.

If Obama violates those laws, that for me would be the line the sand. Even Bush wasn't that open about such a violation of our laws. Not to say he didn't condone it, as he did torture, but not openly.

It is the duty of every American citizen who cares about this country, which is nothing more than a piece of land without the Constitution and the The Bill of Rights, to vehemently oppose anyone who would dare to abuse their power like this. The reasons are so obvious, I do not know why there is even any discussion about it.

[JDPriestly]

33. Where, in the Constitution's definition of treason does it

say that a person accused of treason may be summarily executed without a trial?

I don't see that there.

What is more, the Constitution delegates the power to determine the punishment for treason to Congress, not to the president. Further, the Constitution speaks of a conviction of treason and states that before someone can be convicted of treason, there must be two witnesses. Convictions occur in courts, not in the president's office or at the CIA. Witnesses under the Constitution must be sworn.

Whether someone is tried in a military court or in our Article III courts or even in state courts, they are entitled to due process and certain rights even when the charge is terrorism, even when the charge is treason, even when there are two potential witnesses.

Remember, witnesses are sworn in and may be cross-examined. Summary execution does not permit for swearing in or cross-examination.

If we are at war with Yemen where I understand this man to be, that is a different matter. But I am unaware that we are at war in Yemen. If this man were killed in the cross-fire of combat in which he was a part, that would be a different matter.

Even the Rosenbergs were given due process, and they were accused of very serious treason.