10/06/11 September 30, 2011 was the day America was assassinated.
Many expected President Obama to re-establish the accountability of government to law. Instead, he went further than Bush/Cheney and asserted the unconstitutional power not only to hold American citizens indefinitely in prison without bringing charges, but also to take their lives without convicting them in a court of law. Obama asserts that the US Constitution notwithstanding, he has the authority to assassinate US citizens, who he deems to be a “threat,” without due process of law.
In other words, any American citizen who is moved into the threat category has no rights and can be executed without trial or evidence.
On September 30 Obama used this asserted new power of the president and had two American citizens, Anwar Awlaki and Samir Khan murdered. Khan was a wacky character associated with Inspire Magazine and does not readily come to mind as a serious threat.
Awlaki was a moderate American Muslim cleric who served as an advisor to the US government after 9/11 on ways to counter Muslim extremism. Awlaki was gradually radicalized by Washington’s use of lies to justify military attacks on Muslim countries. He became a critic of the US government and told Muslims that they did not have to passively accept American aggression and had the right to resist and to fight back. As a result Awlaki was demonized and became a threat.
All we know that Awlaki did was to give sermons critical of Washington’s indiscriminate assaults on Muslim peoples. Washington’s argument is that his sermons might have had an influence on some who are accused of attempting terrorist acts, thus making Awlaki responsible for the attempts.
Obama’s assertion that Awlaki was some kind of high-level Al Qaeda operative is merely an assertion. Jason Ditz concluded that the reason Awlaki was murdered rather than brought to trial is that the US government had no real evidence that Awlaki was an Al Qaeda operative.
Having murdered its critic, the Obama Regime is working hard to posthumously promote Awlaki to a leadership position in Al Qaeda. The presstitutes and the worshippers of America’s First Black President have fallen in line and regurgitated the assertions that Awlaki was a high-level dangerous Al Qaeda terrorist. If Al Qaeda sees value in Awlaki as a martyr, the organization will give credence to these claims. However, so far no one has provided any evidence. Keep in mind that all we know about Awlaki is what Washington claims and that the US has been at war for a decade based on false claims.
But what Awlaki did or might have done is beside the point. The US Constitution requires that even the worst murderer cannot be punished until he is convicted in a court of law. When the American Civil Liberties Union challenged in federal court Obama’s assertion that he had the power to order assassinations of American citizens, the Obama Justice (sic) Department argued that Obama’s decision to have Americans murdered was an executive power beyond the reach of the judiciary.
In a decision that sealed America’s fate, federal district court judge John Bates ignored the Constitution’s requirement that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law and dismissed the case, saying that it was up to Congress to decide. Obama acted before an appeal could be heard, thus using Judge Bates’ acquiescence to establish the power and advance the transformation of the president into a Caesar that began under George W. Bush.
Attorneys Glenn Greenwald and Jonathan Turley point out that Awlaki’s assassination terminated the Constitution’s restraint on the power of government. Now the US government not only can seize a US citizen and confine him in prison for the rest of his life without ever presenting evidence and obtaining a conviction, but also can have him shot down in the street or blown up by a drone.
Before some readers write to declare that Awlaki’s murder is no big deal because the US government has always had people murdered, keep in mind that CIA assassinations were of foreign opponents and were not publicly proclaimed events, much less a claim by the president to be above the law. Indeed, such assassinations were denied, not claimed as legitimate actions of the President of the United States.
The Ohio National Guardsmen who shot Kent State students as they protested the US invasion of Cambodia in 1970 made no claim to be carrying out an executive branch decision. Eight of the guardsmen were indicted by a grand jury. The guardsmen entered a self-defense plea. Most Americans were angry at war protestors and blamed the students. The judiciary got the message, and the criminal case was eventually dismissed. The civil case (wrongful death and injury) was settled for $675,000 and a statement of regret by the defendants.
The point isn’t that the government killed people. The point is that never prior to President Obama has a President asserted the power to murder citizens.
Regards,
Paul Craig Roberts
for The Daily Reckoning
Paul Craig Roberts
Paul Craig Roberts is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. Roberts has been a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations.
The Daily Reckoning is your premier source for making sense of the news Washington and Wall Street generate. Each business day, The Daily Reckoning calls on its stable of world-class writers and thinkers to show you how to get ahead.
Start your 100% FREE subscription to The Daily Reckoning today and you’ll get a free research report, “How to Survive the Fall of Social Security.” Simply enter your email address below to get your free report and join over 495,000 worldwide Daily Reckoning subscribers!
We Respect Your Privacy and We will
Never Share or Sell Your Email Address
Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
“Awlaki was a moderate American Muslim cleric who served as an advisor to the US government after 9/11 on ways to counter Muslim extremism. Awlaki was gradually radicalized by Washington’s use of lies to justify military attacks on Muslim countries. He became a critic of the US government and told Muslims that they did not have to passively accept American aggression and had the right to resist and to fight back.”
he sure did. he was the chief advisor of major hassan before the moderate musliim major opened fire at fort hood and killed a dozen american soldiers.
awlaki was an enemy combatant. he made himself so in word and deed. obama did not just decide out of the blue one day to kill some goatherder out in the middle of the desert. awlaki brought this attention on himself and brought the retaliation on himself, not because he simply opposed america but because he allied himself with and advised an organization that preaches and successfully practices killing americans whereever and whenever they can.
there are many potential problems with what is being done in the name of the “war on a tactic”. this is not one of them.
when you need so much oil
the world you will spoil
in your quest for black gold that’s been hiding
under Muslims it seems
lies the goal of men’s dreams
so no protests will we be abiding
from the countries we rape
there can be no escape
so we’ll kill and our hearts we will harden
and we’ll blame someone there
who it is we don’t care
just as long as his name is bin Laden
the ghost of Osama bin Laden
There once was a man from Nantucket…
When I took oath as a naturalized American I severed my loyalty and renounced my citizenship from my native land. As I understand Al-Awlaki was born in the US but also a Yemeni citizen. Did he become naturalized Yemeni? When he took oath as a Yemeni citizen did he also severed his loyalty and citizenship with the US? So is he an American citizen? As Theodore Roosevelt said in the past there is only one American not dual status and I do believe the US only recognizes US citizenship for Americans.
Washington’s argument is that his sermons might have had an influence on some who are accused of attempting terrorist acts, thus making Awlaki responsible for the attempts.
I wonder if that would go for the FBI who sucker in and set up these moron terrorists
I don’t know which will be worse.
Having to vote for Obama to serve George W. Bush’s 4th term……
…..or voting for some cretin from the GOPer side.
So now Americans can experience what the rest of the world already accepts.
Being born to Yemini parents and born in the Usa means he was both American and Yemani citizen by birth. Not by taking a naturalisation oath
U.S. recognizes dual citizenship. Rahm Emanual has dual citizenship. Legally, he is a U.S. citizen though, not Israeli so Rahm retains his rights as a U.S. citizen and our legal system recognizes those rights despite his dual citizenship claim. Same goes with Awlaki.
Our rule of law, if we ever had it, was killed, not Awlaki. The prededent is set. The bill of rights is gone if the gov wants it gone now. They will move slowly with this as is always the case.
The slippery slope is real. Remember RICO? Only going to used against “criminal organizations”, aka the Mafia. RICO’s “criminal orgs” slide down the slope slowly and was, has and is being used against Exec.s spouses, ordinary businesses, etc.
Remember just general words that describe Awlaki like “dissent”, etc. and just if you, or anyone else you know fits into this description. In another decade or so, they may end up like Awlaki.
The term “enemy combatant” has no legal standing beyond the fiction that Bush and now Obama has manufactured out of whole cloth. A person conducting terrorist activities against United States personnel and materiel is either a soldier of a foreign nation or is a criminal. If the former he must be killed/injured/captured on the battlefield and, if captured alive, treated pursuant to the Geneva Convention. If the latter he must be treated pursuant to Constitutional due process of law in a civilian court. He cannot even be prosecuted for war crimes in the absence of a declaration of war by Congress. If we do not adhere to the founding principles of our free nation and the rule of law, we are no better than they are, and we have no moral justification for winning this conflict.
Postscript: I have no patience with those who claim America has “died” or the Constitution is dead or is dissolved and is dissolved perfectly. The Constitution is the Consent of the Governed to be governed and it is a limited Consent. It can not be dissolved. It exists and it is binding so long as it is not replaced by the will of the people. It is not the Constitution that is dissolved and is dissolved perfectly: It is the government that doesn’t constrain itself to its terms. A government — federal, state, or local — that does not derive every scintilla of its authority from the Constitution of the United States is by definition an occupation government, and it is time the people start treating it as such.
Anyone who claims membership with Al-Qaida is embracing their ongoing efforts to kill American citizens. That’s what the literal “war” they’ve declared on us means, even if Al-Qaida is not a country, because killing Americans is a defining element of their creed. It’s not about what they did, but what they’re actively doing. Killing Al-Qaida members is self-defense for any American, because they’re admittedly perpetually endeavoring to kill us.