Excerpt: "After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it was the U.S.). It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its. The U.S. thus transformed someone who was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true face to the world. The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced."
Anwar al-Awlaki speaks in a video message Nov. 8, 2010 released by SITE Intelligence Group. (photo: AP)
The Due-Process-Free Assassination of U.S. Citizens
30 September 11
�
t was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki.� No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was "considering" indicting him).� Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even has any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt.� When Awlaki's father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were "state secrets" and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts.� He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner.� When Awlaki's inclusion on President Obama's hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that "it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing."
After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it was the�U.S.).� It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its.� The U.S. thus transformed someone who was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true face to the world. �The government and media search for The�Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced.
What's most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar ("No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What's most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government's new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government.� Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President's ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki -- including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry's execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists -- criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.
From an authoritarian perspective, that's the genius of America's political culture.� It not only finds way to obliterate the most basic individual liberties designed to safeguard citizens from consummate abuses of power (such as extinguishing the lives of citizens without due process).� It actually gets its citizens to stand up and clap and even celebrate the destruction of those safeguards.
*�* *�*�*
In the column I wrote on Wednesday regarding Wall Street protests, I mistakenly linked to a post discussing a New York Times article by Colin Moynihan as an example of a "condescending" media report about the protest. �There was nothing condescending or otherwise worthy of criticism in Moynihan's article; I�meant to reference this NYT�article by Ginia Bellafante.� My apologies to Moynihan, who rightly objected by email, for the mistake.
�
UPDATE: What amazes me most whenever I write about this topic is recalling how terribly upset so many Democrats pretended to be when Bush claimed the power merely to detain or even just eavesdrop on American citizens without due process.� Remember all that?� Yet now, here's Obama claiming the power not to detain or eavesdrop on citizens without due process, but to kill them; marvel at how the hardest-core White House loyalists now celebrate this and uncritically accept the same justifying rationale used by Bush/Cheney (this is war! the President says he was a Terrorist!) without even a moment of acknowledgment of the profound inconsistency or the deeply troubling implications of having a President -- even Barack Obama -- vested with the power to target U.S. citizens for murder with no due process.
Also, during the�Bush years, civil libertarians who tried to convince conservatives to oppose that administration's radical excesses would often ask things like this:�would you be comfortable having Hillary Clinton wield the power to spy on your calls or imprison you with no judicial reivew or oversight? So for you good progressives out there justifying this, I would ask this:��how would the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process look to you in the hands of, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann?
I was on Democracy Now earlier this morning discussing the Awlaki assassination and presidential due-process-free killings:
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
We can hope that some action can be taken to oust Clarence Thomas, and to select a Supreme Court Justice with some intelligence and integrity.
We need to fight back on all of the attempts being made to restrict voting rights and to gerrymander honesty and fairness out of so many states. That is a real danger.
Murdoch is a bit different in that he is in the business of hiring those guys and managing the distraction. He will always hire a new cast as necessary, probably sooner than later, but he may keep his name in the back row. I don't expect charges against him to amount to much because so much of the media plays the role, in part, that he fills. He is replaceable too, but I expect to see his company around for a while.
Up the 99% we have nothing left to loose, we are broke now.
Where is the accountability to the people?
"Teacher! Teacher!" he cries -- "the schoolhouse be on fire!"
Teacher glares at the little boy over her glasses. "Johnny," she says. "Go to your desk and write 500 times, 'The choolhouse IS on fire.'"
Oh nooooooo! RUN! There are grammar Nazis on board!
As for the "clumsy, jerky sentence structure, that is simply your opinion.
Finally, perhaps all the negative votes were given because all of the criticism was directed at the way the article was written and none of it was directed at the content of the article. I feel sure that those of us who gave negative votes did so on this basis.
Yes, proofreading is a valuable tool in journalism, especially if the errors get in the way of comprehension. As it turns out, the content of this piece is so riveting that I had no trouble following the gist of it...no proofreader necessary here. I'm glowing from Boehlert's conclusion that these court jesters have self-destructed . Don't want nobody to rain on my parade right now.
As for this piece, I had no trouble reading & understanding it.
I'm not sure why you and ejf3 below are getting all the negatives, coffeewriter. You didn't comment at all on the content of the article, just on how poorly it is written. And you're absolutely right -- the typos and poor writing grated on me as I read the piece.
But the content is still there, and I do celebrate the fact that these egomaniacs are beginning to reap what they have sown. The faster they all self-destruct, the better!
Critizing grammar and spelling is beside the point. whether or not you agree is.If you can make out what someone says, then I wish that you don't be so quick to point out every little error.
As far as on the topic, these guys only have themselves to blame.
And it's Fluke (pronounced Flook).
You can say that you don't support Limbaugh but your post tells me differently.
And as to activism, what on earth is wrong with being an activist?
Ms. Fluke's age in all I have read has been 30. Thanks for this clarification.
It will take far longer, however, for the damaged wrought by decades of attacks on civil society carried out by these entities to heal. With a significant segment of the populace now believing they can ignore any idea by accusing its possessor of "drinking the Kool-Aid", mocking his/her name, or saying the likes of "only a stupid person would think that....", some serious changes are in order. What we need now more than anything else is a short course in proper behavior. After all, if we can't talk to each other, we will never get far as a nation. And if our nation is to be represented by the sort of thinking one commonly finds offered from a barstool, well....that hasn't taken us far either, has it?
There have always been those who see no need to mature beyond the level of the playground. But just now, it's time for them to go back there and let grown-ups be in charge.
Then he went national. At first I thought "good for him," but the first time I heard his national broadcast I realized something had changed. Maybe it was me.
Limbaugh was no longer the occasionally-am using "showman," but had become increasingly vitriolic in his commentary. I've never listened to him since.
That was approximately 1988 or '89. Long time fad.
What does Holder say about Limbaugh, etc.? Should not Limbaugh be watching the skies? (Should not we all?)
We got slopes so slippery here it's to even stand up.
What do you mean by "a long history of activism?" I thought we were always encouraged to participate in the political process. Please don't use this as a code word to indicate that someone is doing evil. Anyone who attempts to have influence in the political process is an activist, including Rush Limbaugh and Chris Hedges.
bullshit always eventually walks.
You must mean the band, Rush.
"At that point in my life I was blissfully ignorant of the existence of Mr. Limbaugh.
The greatest what? liar, blowhard, fake, misogynist, fool, slave to the rightwing extremists?
Greatest asshole, I'd say.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/don-imus-on-rush-limbaugh-hes-a-fat-gutless-pill-popping-loser/
I think Don Imus came away from his crisis a better man. If he is not at peace with himself, he should be. I think the opposite is true for Limbaugh.
p.s. Jabba the Fuck. Very good!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/don-imus-rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke_n_1321016.html
There is much worse writing around.
What is most interesting is that they think Beck tells the truth. Beck, of course, repeats this all the time; so they are programmed to hear his nonsense and believe that it's true.
The war against lies and smears will not end any time soon, if ever. It's going to require that liberals and progressives remain vigilant about these right-wing blowhards and, when necessary (in church, online, on the street, etc.) take a stand. Fight back against these liars. I recently called out an old man in a restaurant for spewing Beckerisms about Obama at his table (next to mine).
Their followers suffer from the same pathology of self-loathing and hatred for any person or organization that stands for human decency, common sense and compassionate empathy for others.
From what has been heard from those who support these men, it is clear that most of them are beyond any attempt to save them from themselves. They are just as self-destructiv e as their icons. All folks of good will and sane impulses can do is try to limit the damage to society these people are capable of. How is that done? By remaining sober and constant examples of honesty, decency and justice and by exposing fully the sound and fury that signifies nothing but lunacy on the loose.
This is part of a tidal shift in political thinking. These same guys would have, and did, get away with other displays of poor taste or criminal behavior before, that were at least as bad. The difference is that the public levels of tolerance for their garbage has gone down hill in the past few years.
They didn't suddenly step over an imaginary line. They're just starting to realize the affects of the demographic tide that's going against them. This is only the beginning. In 10 years right-wing hate media will be taken about as seriously as the National Enquirer is today, and probably less seriously than the Onion.
In the meantime, you can expect the repug party to become less conservative or go the way of the Whigs.
Rush is not his own worst enemy while people like me are around.. LOL
They entertain the least common denominator.The y know their audience like no one else. These extremists are well aware of the risks they take with the truth (when did accuracy ever matter to them or their listeners?)
The right wing populists are esentially apolitical.Apol itical because their beliefs and philosophies are not a result of reality, therefore, making them mere followers of a cult of media personality.
Rush is a fool but he is nobody's fool with regards to his political power and ability to make a ton of cash. Never count this fellow (and his like) out. They will all rebound-too many admirers of this "fast food" media empire. Non-thinkers rejoice!
Zen koan
The whole basis of conservative philosophy, if you can call it a philosphy, is a belief that human beings are essentially nasty, selfish rotters who will usually do the wrong thing, if left to their own devices. There are certainly enough people like that to make it possible to sell the conservative line. Interesting thing is that many of the nastiest and most indecent folks among us are the same characters selling that way of thinking. No concidence there, I guess.
Their solution to most problems is to fall back on what they consider stern srength in the form of tough talking militarists and fiscal Scrooges. Any resemblance between such individuals and the Old Testament Jehovah--who is almost always pissed at his human creation--is completely UN-coincidental .
So, Limbaugh is not stupid at all. He knows how to massage the minds of those mired in negativity and loss of faith in human nature. Hey, pandering pays!