But this is one of the towering, unanswerable hypocrisies of Democratic Party politics. The very same faction that pretended for years to be so distraught by Bush’s mere eavesdropping on and detention of accused Terrorists without due process is now perfectly content to have their own President kill accused Terrorists without due process, even when those targeted are their fellow citizens: obviously a far more Draconian and permanent abuse than eavesdropping or detention (identically, the very same faction that objected to Bush’s radical whole-world-is-a-Battlefield theory now must embrace exactly that theory to justify how someone riding in a car, or sitting at home, or sleeping in his bed, in a country where no war is declared, is “on a battlefield” at the time the CIA ends his life).
It is equally false, and independently both misleading and perverse, for Panetta to assert that a citizen in Awlaki’s position could come to the U.S. to assert his due process rights. For one thing, Awlaki was never charged or indicted for anything in the U.S. — he was simply executed without any charges (the Obama administration, after trying to kill him, reportedly “considered” charging him with crimes at one point but never did) – and thus, there was nothing to which he could “turn himself” in even if he wanted to.
Even worse, President Obama’s hit list of those he approves for assassination is completely secret; we only learned that Awlaki was being targeted because someone happened to leak that fact to Dana Priest. The way the process normally works, as Reuters described it, is that targeted Americans are selected “by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions”; moreover, “there is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel” nor “any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.” So, absent a fortuitous leak (acts for which the Obama administration is vindictively doling out the most severe punishment), it would be impossible for American citizens to know that they’ve been selected for execution by President Obama (and thus obviously impossible to assert one’s due process rights to stop it).
Worse still, if a judicial proceeding is commenced by a targeted American seeking to put a halt to the assassination attempt in the absence of a trial — as Awlaki’s father did, with the help of the ACLU and CCR, on behalf of his son — then the Obama DOJ will insist that the reasons for the assassination are “state secrets” and cannot be judicially examined, and independently, that such matters are for the President alone to decide and courts thus have no role to play in interfering with such decisions (see POINT II). American courts, largely deferential to claims of presidential secrecy and authority in the post-9/11 era, almost reflexively accept such claims. In other words, if a targeted American tries to assert these due process rights, the Obama administration will go into court and take exactly the opposite position of the one Panetta is claiming here: namely, that the person has no rights to have a court interfere in the President’s assassination order.
So for so many reasons, Panetta’s claim is utterly false: American citizens secretely targeted by President Obama for execution have no means of obtaining due process even in the unlikely case that they learn they have been so targeted. And this is all independent of Panetta’s warped notion that an American has to be on U.S. soil to claim constitutional protections, a wholesale rejection of well-settled Constitutional law that Americans have the right to travel abroad and, when they do, they retain their Constitutional rights against the U.S. government even when on foreign soil. As the Supreme Court put it in 1956, specifically discussing the requirement that a citizen be given a trial before punishment can be doled out (emphasis added):
At the beginning, we reject the idea that, when the United States acts against citizens abroad, it can do so free of the Bill of Rights. The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. When the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution provide to protect his life and liberty should not be stripped away just because he happens to be in another land. This is not a novel concept. To the contrary, it is as old as government.
But the final point is the most important and revealing of all: Panetta’s whole case rests on simply asserting, without proving, that Awlaki was a Terrorist trying to “kill Americans.” That, of course, is precisely what is in dispute: actual Yemen experts have long questioned whether Awlaki had any operational role at all in Al Qaeda (as opposed to a role as its advocate, which is clearly protected free speech). No evidence has been publicly presented that Awlaki had any such role. We simply have the untested, unverified accusations of government officials, such as Leon Panetta, that he is guilty: in other words, we have nothing but decrees of guilt. The U.S. Constitution, first and foremost, was designed to prohibit the doling out of punishments based on government accusations untested and unproven in a court of law; for those who doubt that, just read the relevant provisions (“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“; “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”).
But as I wrote the other day, “the U.S. really is a society that simply no longer believes in due process: once the defining feature of American freedom that is now scorned as some sort of fringe, radical, academic doctrine.” Instead:
Supporters of both political parties endorse, or at least tolerate, all manner of government punishment without so much as the pretense of a trial, based solely on government accusation: imprisonment for life, renditions to other countries, even assassinations of their fellow citizens. Simply uttering the word Terrorist, without proving it, is sufficient.
Here we have the U.S. Defense Secretary, life-long Democrat Leon Panetta, telling you as clearly as he can that this is exactly the operating premise of the administration in which he serves: once the President accuses you of being a Terrorist, a decision made in secret and with no checks or due process, we can do anything we want to you, including executing you wherever we find you. It’s hard to know what’s more extraordinary: that he feels so comfortable saying this right out in the open, or that so few people seem to mind.
And, by the way, I predict not a jot of this will change should the GOP win this fall. Because, as the bipartisan passage of the NDAA (led by the GOP) made clear, our Ruling Classes, left and right, love this authoritarian police state stuff.
Here’s a fact: I’m not looking forward to the repercussions on Catholics and the pro-life movement should Obama be re-elected. And although it’s already happening in isolated cases, it’s going to be just a short hop to the point at which the “corporate” mob starts plucking off employees who don’t join the neo-Enlightenment and sacrifice our souls to the Devil…
The only freedom we have is our Faith. Everyone who sins is a tyrrant to someone. The question is, how do we end the tyrrany which begins with me/us?
No, I think the question is how do we end Obama’s tyranny.
Ronald,
I have no problem agreeing with the rhetoric you pose above. But that still does not somehow eliminate the argument that this administration represents a real tyranny. What you are saying is valid and I agree with it, but it’s beside the ultimate point that the winner of the 2008 popularity contest is a true tyrant. I said it twice.
Joseph, I see what you call tyranny and I can understand such a conclusion. I do not see Obama as a tyrant. In this instance I see him as a typical politician. I had hoped for better when I voted for him in the sense that his election would give people of color a sense of value who had never experienced it before. I saw him as a devoted father and husband and a good role model in that sense. He personally cannot “make” us do anything against our will. Tyrants have total power over their population. Obama does not. In the spiritual sense by calling him a tyrant we create an internal and external environment of hostility which is the way the world reacts to worldly problems. Our faith then becomes a political movement and then is diminished through that process. We become screamers and scream with the rest of humanity. I remember reading Christ’s words that the peace He brings is not the peace that the world seeks.
I also remember some years ago after the Rawanda massacre a woman named, I think, Magdalena who had survived the massacre when she hid in a secret place behind a wall in someone’s home. She constantly prayed the Rosary and the thought that was given to her was that if everyone who hated this tyrant would instead constantly pray for his conversion, then the massacre would stop.
Then I look at the book of Jonah and the example of sacrifice which was required to stop their annihilation. My thoughts go into directions which I do not seek. I only put in writing what enters my mind. I intend no harm nor intend to be superior. I am sorry if I come across that way. That is not my intent. God Bless.
“I had hoped for better when I voted for him in the sense that his election would give people of color a sense of value who had never experienced it before.”
I seriously hope that isn’t the reason you voted for him. I’m assuming that you’re a pretty smart guy, so I don’t think you did because if you did that means you cast a vote for the presidency in the same way you’d vote for prom king. I do understand the “on the other hand” reason for voting which was, I couldn’t vote for McCain. As logical as that conclusion is, it’s still not completely perfect.
Obama, thanks to Bush before him and by himself, has given the Executive branch some pretty substantial powers over the people… even as far as deciding who he (or anyone advising him) deems a terrorist and can hold indefinitely without a fair trial. He has also used one of his new powers to assassinate American citizens without proving their guilt in court and letting a court decide whether or not their crimes were worthy of the death penalty. Now, he is doing what so many Catholics warned that he would do. He is directly threatening religious freedom, specifically the Catholic Church. If he isn’t a ‘tyrant’, ‘despot’, or ‘dictator’ yet by definition, he is very close to being so.
However, I do think it’s fair to say that we are, in fact, ruled by our current government, which includes Obama. So, perhaps Obama himself is not a despotic dictator, but the entire government is… if the definition can be applied to a group of people. We, the people, obviously have no voice any longer.
I think the angst that comes for people over Obama is that many of the building blocks set in place for a total dictatorship of our nation happened under his watch and were also instigated and thoroughly supported by him.
You are correct in that I had other reasons voting for him. I delayed voting until the last possible moment. There was a strong attachment to the culture of death on each side. It is already a dictatorship in my opinion. Its roots seem to stem from the American elite who have been exercising their power throughout history. The illusion we buy as you mentioned elsewhere is that we believe that voting and politics will change things and it seems that this has become our idol or false hope.
Since I have experienced a couple of miracles in my life that brought me to God and changed my perspective, my natural inclination is always to default to the spiritual aspect of our faith to influence the physical aspect of our struggles. Thanks for you kindness in this exchange.
“It is already a dictatorship in my opinion. Its roots seem to stem from the American elite who have been exercising their power throughout history. The illusion we buy as you mentioned elsewhere is that we believe that voting and politics will change things and it seems that this has become our idol or false hope.”
Mindlink.
Moral relativism at its finest. We’re all tyrants, so who are we to throw stones at other sinners… nice.
My conscience is at ease with declaring that sometimes – SOMETIMES – it really is someone else’s fault, and not mine. In this case, it really is Obama’s fault, his sin, his privation of love which facilitates some of the worst evil our nation has ever supported.
And that goes for Republicans, too. And to put a finer point on it, no one is precluded from battling the tyrant within and the tyrant without at the same time.
That’s basically my point, Mark. The Obamabots who are crying about this abominable attempt to attack religious freedom with regard to contraception will gladly rip the temporary tarp they’ve placed on their shrines once the inevitable happens (he backs down from his contraception mandate). Nevermind the other autrocities! But, that was predictable anyway.
You seem to believe that human beings are animals incapable of moral persuasion. This is an attitude for masters of a police state, but not for Christians. The Christian tradition rejects this theory and urges us to admonish the sinner and instruct the ignorant.
What? Are you serious? I’m guessing you just don’t like me or something. I mentioned in another thread how I have been morally persuaded, so I obviously don’t believe what you just attributed to me. I think the problem here is that it’s impossible for you to remember or even care to remember everything I’ve written on this particular topic as a whole. I stated in an earlier thread how the Obamabots I’m speaking of have said themselves that they will instantly return to his side once this thing blows over. They themselves, including Kmeic, have made it clear that this issue is only a temporary hiccup in their relationship. As soon as it’s resolved then they’ll return to the stump. MM at Vomitus Nova even gave Winters a hard time for recusing his connection with Obama… essentially calling his a kneejerk reaction and a mistake to abandon his fearless leader so quickly.
So, when I say Obamabots, I mean Obamabots… the ones that haven’t really gone back to live with their mother-in-law, but have merely told Barack to sleep on the couch for a little while.
The problem is that you talk as though everybody who ever supported Obama is utterly in the tank for him. You may not realize you come off that way, but you do. You offer nothing but counsels of despair. I don’t dislike you. I don’t know you. I merely respond to what you write.
Ok. I’ll accept that critique. I’m not lumping everyone into one basket. I thought I was pretty clear on that as I usually speak in metaphors and use a lot of analogies. I think that, for the most part, most of your readers “get” what I’m saying.
As far as counsels of despair, if your world is purely this one… the one here in America, then I can understand that too. And yeah, I would agree with you. I don’t think there is any hope for this country at this point in time. I think we’ve hit the point of no return and there are no opposing candidates that can possibly or are not showing any signs of being someone who will try to turn things around. So, yeah, we’re in for tough times. I don’t think that America is not an exception to the rule when it comes to oppressive governments around the world. Lest you forget, it’s only been a little over two decades since the dissolution of the USSR. Before that time, Catholics had it real tough in every country in the Soviet bloc. We (you and I) are only two generations away from WWII. That’s not ancient history. It’s pure ignorance to believe that what we see happening here isn’t dangerously close to what’s happened already before in our lifetime and in the lifetime of our grandparents. It’s the same people, the same philosophies. The only difference that I think exists now is that the law and technology has enabled us to kill more innocent people silently at a faster rate than ever before… even without open war.
But, if you want encouragement and some optimism, I can tell you that Christ is Our Lord and has given us something that this world could never give us, unity with God eternally… eternal happiness. And, in the end, guess who wins? Does that help? I’m actually a really positive guy in real life, but I’m not going to candy coat our current dismal situation in this country.
And I don’t take anything back about what I’ve said about Vomitus Nova…
This is why I have abandoned the GOP….but they at least are open about what they were doing (for the most part) i.e. the GWOT and their targets…..say what you will about their execution of the war in general.
But the Democrats (there are exceptions, some of whom are visitors on this blog) for the most part are complete hypocrites since now that the person occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is their guy, all of the reasons of protest they posed over the 8 years Bush was POTUS are now the reasons that the GWOT should continue and escalate it.
War knows no party, but parties know war.
I don’t know who makes me more sick, the Republicans or the Democrats. I think I hurl about 3 seconds faster when I think of Democrats than when I think about Republicans though. The net result is the same, however.
Depends on the amount of hurlage per party…
You can’t just have a presidential change — you need change from all levels. It’s time to pay more careful attention to what local candidates are saying as well. Hopefully, that whole “balance of power” thing still has some sway.
Hopefully.
Citizens need to bring these questions up at town halls, debates, wheresoever there’s a talking head somewhere he can be put on public record.
I was pretty active in Michigan at one time and I did precisely that… but I was the only one.
Obama defender. You do realize he bragged in a speech about assassinating a US citizen don’t you? He can brand you a terrorist, lock you in Gitmo, and keep you there without trial indefinitely. Power grabs are always made like this. Suddenly and in the name of security your freedoms are gone.
But haven’t you heard? He’s the “coolest” president… like… ever! Gotta run to the Apple store where the other members of my cult are! See ya!
Sometimes I worry this is the time spoken of in I Thessalonians 5:3:
3 When people say, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as travail comes upon a woman with child, and there will be no escape.
Mark,
Check out Greenwald’s latest. It looks like many on the Left are willing to look the other way as long as the guy in the White House has the letter “D” after his name:
‘Beyond that, Obama has used drones to kill Muslim children and innocent adults by the hundreds. He has refused to disclose his legal arguments for why he can do this or to justify the attacks in any way. He has even had rescuers and funeral mourners deliberately targeted. As Hayden said: ”Right now, there isn’t a government on the planet that agrees with our legal rationale for these operations, except for Afghanistan and maybe Israel.” But that is all perfectly fine with most American liberals now that their Party’s Leader is doing it:
Fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year. Support for drone strikes against suspected terrorists stays high, dropping only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in northern Yemen.
The Post‘s Greg Sargent obtained the breakdown on these questions and wrote today:
“The number of those who approve of the drone strikes drops nearly 20 percent when respondents are told that the targets are American citizens. But that 65 percent is still a very big number, given that these policies really should be controversial.
And get this: Depressingly, Democrats approve of the drone strikes on American citizens by 58-33, and even liberals approve of them, 55-35. Those numbers were provided to me by the Post polling team.
It’s hard to imagine that Dems and liberals would approve of such policies in quite these numbers if they had been authored by George W. Bush.”‘
I know… it is very strange that the so-called opposition to the behavior of the previous administration (to the point of well documented media outcry) would so instantly fall in love with the policies they once pretended to revile. But this only lends creedence to the idea that there truly is little difference between those who identify themselves as Democrat than those who identify themselves as Republican. And it also illustrates just how wicked we’ve all become. Mark posted a link to a story about a girl in Philadelphia who was mentally handicapped and had initially been refused a kidney transplant on that basis by the doctors. After the mother blogged about it and drudged up some support for her cause, the doctors reversed their decision (knowing that refusing a transplant for a living human who needed it because they deemed that human unworthy due to retardation could actually end in a lawsuit) and struck from the record their previous reasons for refusing the transplant to begin with. It was a moment of celebration, but you wouldn’t think so if you had read the comments posted on the article. Those who commented were outraged that a “retard” would take a kidney that a “normal” person could use. For me, it was quite a shock. Two generations after WWII and Americans are publicly speaking like Nazis and Soviets. That’s why I really don’t think there is much hope for this country, no matter who is president or Speaker of the House. The rot is thorough.
Have there been polls that focus on the “killing” part rather than the “drone” part? I’m curious, because I can see approving of drone strikes in situations where we would previously have employed soldiers or pilots — that’s just a change in the technologies of battle. The issue that arises is not in our means, but in who we are killing and whether we have any moral claim that it was necessary and just to do so. Is it possible that some of the poll respondents are approving of the use of drones in the abstract rather than approving of the killing of specific people?