[Salon] Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

This is hardly new, but I'm not surprised Obama is sticking with the policy. He's reneged on stopping many other civil rights abuses, perhaps lending credance to the adage that "once a government is given a power, it will never willingly give it up".

Of course, I'd argue that this has been the case for years. It's just now mainstream enough that government officials can defend it (poorly) without fear of retribution.

*sigh*

 

The US, like many other countries, has a long-standing tradition of carrying out extrajudicial executions or assassinations. When our enemies do it, its considered a serious crime. I would agree with that. When we do it, it is considered (at worst) a necessary evil -- something we'd rather not have to do, but what the situation compels us to do.

 

From the NY Times:

 

Oh wow, the government assassinates people? I never knew that. This must be new...

 

This move is big.

Bush expansion of wartime powers continues...

 

Because it's been done before doesn't make it OK to do now.

 

At least they arn't hiding it...

 

meet the new boss???

 

One thing about it, this administration cannot be pegioned holed.

Today obama announced he wouldn't retaliate with nuclear weapons against pretty much any non nuclear state

 

So is this guy an American or not? First link says he is, second one calls him a Mexican (possibly naturalized).

 

Due process is dead. There will be no significant opposition to Obama from the loyal "left", which has been placated by decidedly un-progressive health care reform and the presence of a black face in the White House.

 

Obama is pretty much a republican. Give bankers money. ive insurance company money. Continue and expand wars. Keep the same policies as bush etc..

 

He's a politician - always apt to respond disproportionately to the desires of the small percentage of citizens who have capital and power in contrast with those citizens who do not.

I don't like this.

 

I'm not sure where the fact that it's a possible US citizen makes any difference whatsoever. This isn't the same issue as say, illegal torture or a made-up parallel judicial system that courts won't tolerate. Illegal torture is illegal torture whether you are american or not, despite the cheney's of the world trying to explain otherwise. Same thing with due process rights - whether or not you're a US citizen, there's no parallel criminal court set up for foreign nationals with lower burdens of proof etc - they go to the same courthouse as you and I (with the exception of INS proceedings which are a separate issue).

The whole distinction between assassination and just regular old warmaking is kind of a tenuous one in which there isn't really a clear cut answer like above - I mean, when the Air Force is going to bomb a camp where Bin Laden is, is that an unlawful assassination? Not really at all. But if they pay a contract ninja to cut his jugular with a throwing star it probably is. But shoudl it be? What's the difference? Then of course you have drones which really blur the lines, espeically when run by contractors or CIA.

For the record I don't know if there was any stance on targeted drone attacks or assassinations or whatever that Obama is going back or reneging on here.

 

The problem I have is that it's putting punishment before a trial for a U.S. citizen.

You touched on part of the problem in your post. If it happened solely in the field of battle, and the US citizen happened to die in the field of battle, as an enemy combatant that would be one thing. Now it may or may not happen on the field of battle, and their is a presumed guilt where the govt. has already decided on the severity of punishment.

 

I think Clinton had taken assassinations off the table. And then he took out targets with missile attacks which were somehow not construed as assassinations. Am I remembering that wrong? (That all seemed very strange to me since a personal assassination is much more precise and doesn't have the same risk of collateral damage.)

I hadn't realized that Bush said assassinations are okay. If Bush said he could but didn't, and Obama said he could be didn't, then nothing has really changed. I don't think I have a big problem with Anwar al-Awlaki being on the list. He's a citizen, but we're at war with him (as a member of Al Queda). I think we're allowed to kill people we're at war with. If we can get together with Yemeni law enforcement, arrest and extradite him, fine; but I think a old-fashioned attack is just as good in wartime (though Yemen might disagree).

I would have a problem with conducting an assassination on US soil. We supposedly control this area, so if there are Al Queda operatives here (citizen or not), they should be arrested and given due process. It's a little much to ask us to extend due process in wartime into foreign countries that don't cooperate.

 

I don't think you can characterize it as punishment really and in fact we really shouldn't - that's the problem with getting the CIA and Military involved with the justice system and using them to enact illegal practices under their guise like hte Bush administration did.