Jake Tapper vs. Jay Carney on President Killing U.S. Citizens

[nashville_brook]

Run time: 03:53 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIo   Posted on YouTube: October 02, 2011 By YouTube Member: AnonOps1337 Views on YouTube: 385   Posted on DU: October 02, 2011 By DU Member: nashville_brook Views on DU: 5570

 
if you haven't seen ABC's Jake Tapper's questioning of Jay Carney from Friday...it's a must-see.

here's the transcript...but it doesn't do justice to seeing Tapper's questioning. this is what a real journo looks like.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/30/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney


Jake.

Q You said that Awlaki was demonstrably and provably involved in operations. Do you plan on demonstrating --

MR. CARNEY: I should step back. He is clearly -- I mean "provably" may be a legal term. I think it has been well established, and it has certainly been the position of this administration and the previous administration that he is a leader in -- was a leader in AQAP; that AQAP was a definite threat, was operational, planned and carried out terrorist attacks that, fortunately, did not succeed, but were extremely serious -- including the ones specifically that I mentioned, in terms of the would-be Christmas Day bombing in 2009 and the attempt to bomb numerous cargo planes headed for the United States. And he was obviously also an active recruiter of al Qaeda terrorists. So I don't think anybody in the field would dispute any of those assertions.

Q You don't think anybody else in the government would dispute that?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I wouldn’t know of any credible terrorist expert who would dispute the fact that he was a leader in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and that he was operationally involved in terrorist attacks against American interests and citizens.

Q Do you plan on bringing before the public any proof of these charges?

MR. CARNEY: Again, the question makes us -- has embedded within it assumptions about the circumstances of his death that I’m just not going to address.

Q How on earth does it have -- I really don't understand. How does -- he’s dead. You are asserting that he had operational control of the cargo plot and the Abdulmutallab plot. He’s now dead. Can you tell us, or the American people -- or has a judge been shown --

MR. CARNEY: Well, again, Jake, I’m not going to go any further than what I’ve said about the circumstances of his death and --

Q I don't even understand how they're tied.

MR. CARNEY: -- the case against him, which, again, you’re linking. And I think that --

Q You said that he was responsible for these things.

MR. CARNEY: Yes, but again --

Q Is there going to be any evidence presented?

MR. CARNEY: I don't have anything for you on that.

Q Do you not see at all -- does the administration not see at all how a President asserting that he has the right to kill an American citizen without due process, and that he’s not going to even explain why he thinks he has that right is troublesome to some people?

MR. CARNEY: I wasn’t aware of any of those things that you said actually happening. And again, I’m not going to address the circumstances of Awlaki’s death. I think, again, it is an important fact that this terrorist, who was actively plotting -- had plotted in the past, and was actively plotting to attack Americans and American interests, is dead. But I’m not going to -- from any angle -- discuss the circumstances of his death.

Q Do you know that the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU tried to get permission to represent Awlaki? And his father had asked them to do that. But they needed to get permission from the Treasury Department so that they could challenge his being on this targeted killing list. And the administration, the Obama administration refused to let them represent him, to not even -- he couldn't even have the ACLU representing him.

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would send those questions, or take those questions to Treasury or Justice. I don't have anything on that for you.

Q What do you think constitutional law professor Barack Obama would make of this?

MR. CARNEY: I think he spoke about it today.

[swilton]

1. Thank you Nashville for sharing

and Jake Tapper for articulating the argument so clearing and showing the absurdity of the situation that US foreign policy actions have laid out for us.

[nashville_brook]

2. you're very welcome. i found this video to be quite heartening...

that, there actually are people who still understand that summary execution helped to inspire the American Revolution in the first place.

[sabrina 1]

43. Thank you for this. It is heartening that people are demanding

answers they are entitled to. It is disheartening that there were no answers. I hope they will be forthcoming in the future.

[ooglymoogly]

7. Jake Tapper is asking the questions all law abiding citezens

who live under the pretense of democracy should and must be asking.

[Poll_Blind]

3. Carney isn't very convincing.

The issue here is the process and evidence they use to kill off American citizens. This same tepid attempt at an "answer" from the Bush Administration would have been excoriated and derided for the claptrap it is.

PB

[nashville_brook]

13. that, and...if there is evidence, then why not present it?

also notice the tap dance he does around the legal language.

[DirkGently]

4. This is the Doublethink Bush created. We killed a U.S. citizen because he was a terrorist, which we

do not have to explain or prove or provide evidence about, because he is a terrorist, and therefore it's all classified. No different from Guantanamo. We can't tell you what they did, because of what we claim they did.


What's implied here is that for P.R. purposes, the administration claims to have dispatched a known terrorist. Scratch the surface though, and ask for proof, or even evidence, and it's a national security matter that never officially happened. We will eat the cake of terrorist-fighting propaganda, while retaining our scrutiny-free cloak of claimed national security secrecy.


This is the Bush-concocted conceit of unlimited Executive power.

Step 1: Everything we call terrorism is a war. Anywhere, anyone, anytime. It has no borders, it never ends, and combatants are whomever we say.

Step 2: The President can do anything he deems fit to protect the country in a war.

Step 3: None of the above is subject to public review or scrutiny. It's a secret because we say it needs to be secret for reasons which we are keeping secret. Because it's a secret.


Under this rubric, anyone may be killed, and no official reason given. How anyone could for a moment contend that's okay is beyond me.

[ooglymoogly]

6. +1 nt

[nashville_brook]

14. also, he was a friend of the Pentagon before he was an enemy of the state, which suggests

that the killing could have other dimensions to it.

[DirkGently]

17. There's an obvious limitless potential for exact that sort of thing whenever the Secret Killing

power is invoked. Who are among the "collateral damage?" Who are those whose names we never learn? It would be incredibly naive to think that people who are perhaps only "enemy combatants" in that they are in some way "inconvenient" would never be among the unfortunate dead, when it's a given no one will ever be permitted to even ask.

[Dokkie]

24. yea

It reminds me of one of those Damon Wayan action movies where an ex CIA/Army/security guys is falsely accused of some heinous crimes against the state. He is Innocent but he cannot prove it because the CIA/State department/police chasing him is given orders to kill on sight so he spend the whole movie trying to prove his innocence.

Not saying this is what happened in this case but if it were to happen, how are we supposed to know? in this case, he was killed before he was able to prove his innocence.

[blank space]

22. Bush didn't

have sanctioned assassinations.

This is Obama - 100%.

Wear it like a man Dirk.

[DirkGently]

28. Bush started the Predator killings. And provided the legal doublethink to permit them.

[ooglymoogly]

5. KR and thanx....humana humana humana....zig heil.....down right creepy.

[stockholmer]

8. this is an extremely troubling precedent being set, and portends dark events for the future

I also am so sick of hearing that Bush did this, and Bush did that. Of course Bush did horrid horrid things, he was a monster. But to use this as an excuse for why Obama seems to do the terrible things he now does, AND to simply repeat this ad nauseum turns Obama into a Bush-controlled robot, incapable of independent thought and action. Obama is not an innocent actor, playing out a pre-destined role in a Greek tragedy. I will never let him off the hook as he takes the power and goes beyond things that Bush didn't even do. So too with the next POTUS, and the next, etc etc when they push the tyrant envelope even further still.

The US has lost most of its moorings that a nation needs to retain some semblance of civil liberties.

[azul]

21. Could there be a possible alternative explanation?

That Bush and now Obama have been ordered to back up rogue CIA actions by the CIA and/or military? That they didn't have any choice in the matter, and these above-the-law actions have now been brought out in a semi-opaque declaration of power? Is the CIA beyond any authority?

Who can get past the secrecy and defenses to get to the facts to disprove this possibility, that the CIA or military is not run amok? My congressman? Our free press?

[nashville_brook]

30. all very good questions.

[azul]

34. "I think he spoke about it today."

But we're not quite sure.

It's mysterious, and it shouldn't be.

[DirkGently]

32. That's the problem with opacity. When nothing is explained, the explanation could be anything.

[sabrina 1]

44. That is a possibility.

I don't know who could answer that question. If that were the case, I am sure it would be dangerous for anyone to reveal it.

[JDPriestly]

41. I wonder whether Obama would claim to himself the authority to

send a drone after me simply because I question his apparently arbitrary killing of this man. I am certainly no terrorist, but then how is terrorism and a terrorist defined?

I was sitting at lunch with a group of lawyers discussing the Patriot Act soon after it was enacted, and I said then that I was not pleased with the Act because it does not define terrorism precisely enough.

Normally, in order to be enforceable under the Constitution, a criminal law must define those acts that it declares to be illegal with sufficient clarity to put a person on notice with regard to what acts he or she should avoid. I just don't think that the Patriot Act does that. But then, no one is going to pay any attention to what I say. I never got an answer to my question at that lunch. Everyone just looked at me like I was kind of crazy or unpatriotic. But the job of lawyers is to question what the law means. That is their job -- to ask these questions. So, thanks to Tapper for doing what the lawyers should be doing.

[DirkGently]

50. Indeed. Activists have already been indicted in the U.S. Will they simply be executed?

What Carney demonstrated is that there is no recognition of any boundaries here whatsoever He's "not going to talk about it." A citizen was killed by the U.S. military / it's suggested in the press he was a dangerous terrorist / end of discussion.

Who else can be killed? By whom? Where?

A white supremacist group recently tried to blow up a civil rights march with a backpack full of rat poision-dipped nails. Is a Hellfire headed their way?

[JDPriestly]

54. This guy preached in inflammatory language and was accused of being

tied to Al Qaeda. If that is true, there has to be some more solid evidence of it. Secret indictments are precisely what caused the British people to overthrow some of their governments.

This accused may have been as guilty as sin and terribly dangerous. If so, there should be lots of proof, lots of evidence. It is absurd that the White House does not deign to offer a better defense of its seemingly arbitrary killing. This just makes no sense and is not consistent with our Constitution.

The president can't just declare someone guilty and then execute him or her. We have a Constitution precisely to prohibit that kind of use of power. Makes utterly no difference whether the guy was a Frankenstein monster or not.

This is not about protecting that guy. It is about protecting you and me and our rights.

[Kurovski]

.

Run time: 03:53 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIo   Posted on YouTube: October 02, 2011 By YouTube Member: AnonOps1337 Views on YouTube: 385   Posted on DU: October 02, 2011 By DU Member: Kurovski Views on DU: 5570

 

[Kurovski]

10. I have no idea how this got in here.

:shrug:

[nashville_brook]

12. that's so weird -- so, it's possible to post a vid straight into a message?

click edit and check the code.

[Kurovski]

15. There is nothing there in edit.

Yipes! Do I just hit "edit", or something else? It's as white as Dick Cheney's wrinkled ass.

[nashville_brook]

16. totally weird!

this thread is haunted by the ghost of the Constitution.

[Kurovski]

20. I was searching for Anonymous info prior to the supernatural event.

I'm in trouble now.

I did rec.

[jefferson_dem]

9. I applaud Tapper for asking the questions.

Even though I fully support the mission...and the successful result.

[blank space]

23. Great -

So if you or someone you loves does something Obama doesn't approve of your ok if he orders them dead with no recourse ?

I thought it was US of A , not YEMEN.

[jefferson_dem]

25. Yeah. Right.

Exactly what I said. :crazy:

[DirkGently]

45. How do you feel about the refusal to answer them? Whether or not you approve the result?

[JDPriestly]

11. This is how police states start out.

For shame Obama. For shame Geithner.

As one who has studied a little history, I am just so disappointed, so sad to see my country, the country of which I have been so proud, sink to this level. If the man was guilty of a crime, then he should have been tried pursuant to the Constitution. If not, then he should have been free.

Obama cannot even tell us what his evidence was after the fact. We are just supposed to accept his word for the fact that the guy committed a crime. We don't even know what crime precisely he was accused of committing. Abetting terrorist acts? Which ones? Where? And what specific actions did he take other than making speeches?

The issue is not whether Obama made the right judgment. The issue is whether he and others in Congress and his administration had the right to sit as a judge and jury and then act as hangman when the Constitution does not give him that right and, in fact, prohibits such an act.

This is the worst thing that a president has ever done that I know about -- the absolute worst. This is on the level of Stalin or Hitler. Sorry to have to say that, but it is. Pol Pot here we come.

The deprivation of human rights to this extent in our country so proud of its Constitution. People have been deprived of their rights before, and some of the rights we enjoy were not well defined until the 1950s and 1960s, but this is an appalling disregard for the law. Just appalling.

[nashville_brook]

18. couldn't agree more.

[Dokkie]

35. wow, just wow

Now lets hope the blood thristy wing of the democratic party will take notice. My rule is, dont give Obama any powers you cant thrust in Bush's hands.

[Cherchez la Femme]

37. too late

[walerosco]

39. +1000

just stole the words out of my mouth :)

[DirkGently]

49. Lots of people don't see a problem so long as it's "the bad people" being disappeared.

People apparently don't understand that civil rights and due process exist exclusively for the people we believe to be bad.

Do we actually have to explain the fact that are inherent problems with letting the government summarily decide who can be killed as enemy of the state?

[Uncle Joe]

19. I believe Tapper is just part of the corporate media and the only reason, he's being aggressive in

his questioning is because the President is a Democrat, Tapper wants to enable another Republican to power, it's part of the pro-wrestling good guys/bad guys B.S. it all plays well with Cheney's "criticism" on the other thread, asking for an Obama apology.

When a Republican does come to power, Tapper will become a lamb again when it comes to executive trashing of the Bill of Rights and the onward march of corporate supremacy.

Having said that I totally agree with Tapper's line of questioning and that Obama has only moved the nation further down the slippery slope to autocratic perdition that Cheney/Bush's "overreaction" spawned.

Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, nashville_brook.

[azul]

26. If Tapper is not a corporate media stooge though,

will he be punished to set yet another example to real reporters?

You are right that his probing questions now are necessary. If then there is general acceptance and no lawsuits, the precedent is set, rights demonstrably trashed.

[Uncle Joe]

33. I believe there is a snowball's chance in hell,

that A. Tapper is not a corporate media stooge and B. that even if he wasn't that he would be ever be punished for this questioning.

Primarily because Obama isn't a Republican President, and anything that weakens a Democratic President or for that matter Congressperson whether rightfully so or not will be accepted, embraced or tolerated by the corporate supremacist PTBs.

The "Prime Directive" of the corporate media is the enabling of corporate supremacist worshiping Republicans to power, helping Democrats that support Republican/corporate policies obtain or maintain power will almost always be subordinated to that "Prime Directive."

The corporate supremacists know that if something like this were ever to come to lawsuits, the SC would ultimately decide the case and in regards to the big picture, Presidents and the Senate determine the makeup of the SC, thus more Republicans controlling both institutions insures the loss of any potential lawsuit.

[azul]

36. It will be interesting to see what happens.

-for B, what about Dan Rather, Gary Webb, Helen Thomas, etc., and Robert Parry?:


"One early turning point in the switch from “skeptical” journalism to “patriotic” journalism occurred in 1976 with the blocking of Rep. Otis Pike’s congressional report on CIA misdeeds. CIA Director Bush had lobbied behind the scenes to convince Congress that suppressing the report was important for national security.

But CBS news correspondent Daniel Schorr got hold of the full document and decided that he couldn’t join in keeping the facts from the public. He leaked the report to the Village Voice – and was fired by CBS amid charges of reckless journalism.

~snip~

The counterattack against the “skeptical journalists” had begun."

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/101905.html

[Uncle Joe]

52. Weren't they basically punished for challenging Republican Presidents' policies or records?

"for B, what about Dan Rather, Gary Webb, Helen Thomas, etc., and Robert Parry?:"

[nashville_brook]

29. fyi-Tapper wrote Down and Dirty: The Plot to Steal the Presidency on the 2000 Presidential election

and was the Washington correspondent for Salon.com from 1999 to 2002, where he was an early questioner of the Bush administration's claims about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

[DirkGently]

31. If he was arguing in tandem with Cheney, he wouldn't be pointing out the problem with lack of proof,

etc. I think anyone would perceive this kind of action is directly in line with Bush / Republican policy. Republican criticism will not be in the form of moral outrage at the act, it will be a claim of hypocrisy for Obama's previous criticisms of Bush policy.

And they'll have a point.

[hulka38]

27. It's the Bush administration

on "national security", secrecy and expansion of executive powers.

[walerosco]

38. K & R

Sometimes Obama makes me wonder if he really was a consititutional scholar.

[watajob]

40. The old do as I say...

... not as I do.

[DirkGently]

51. I'd love to hear the supposed parameters of the War on Terror. Who else can do this? To whom?

Can Micronesia blow up a British citizen it claims is a terrorist in Sudan?

Can we kill citizen "terrorists" here? What's so special about doing it Yemen? Is there a Hellfire headed to a Klan rally sometime soon?

What about these people the FBI keeps arresting, after spending months talking them into making some impossible plan? Will they just be shot in the head now? If no one we call a terrorist needs a trial, what would be the hangup there?

It's brave new world.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

42. Carney should have yelled "YOU NEVER LOVED HIM, PUMA!!"...

.... thrown out a handful of blue link covered paper, and disappeared in the cloud of paper yelling "I LIVE TO FIGHT ANOTHER DAY!!!"

Doesn't work in real life, eh? The argument can't hold water.

[xocet]

46. K & R n/t

[The Northerner]

47. K&R n/t

[Kurovski]

48. Kick. (nt)

[ljm2002]

53. What I found most telling...

...was that Tapper kept asking about evidence of al-Awlaki's involvement in terrorist plots, and Carney kept refusing to talk about "the circumstances of his death". But Tapper wasn't asking about the circumstances of his death. Classic sidestep technique.