Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 252 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Will Democrats Face Obama's Policy Of Killing Americans Without Trial?

When George W. Bush began assassinations of non-Americans without trial, Democrats expressed strong objections. When Barack Obama began assassinations of Americans, without any trial, Democrats got confused about what to do. A few have expressed opposition, but many, leaders and rank-and-file alike, have decided that they’ll support Obama’s policy of extrajudicial killings, even though it’s more extreme than the policy they objected to under George W. Bush. We’ve known for a long while that Barack Obama has been targeting Americans that he alleges have been involved with terrorist organizations that are planning violent attacks against the United States. Yesterday, however, Americans were able to read a leaked document, created at Barack Obama’s direction, explicitly stating that the President can order the killing of an American citizen who is alleged to be connected to a terrorist organization.

It’s not an issue of whether the U.S. military needs to tiptoe on a battlefield, worrying if people on in the enemy ranks might include disloyal Americans. It’s an issue of targeted assassination of a particular individual who is not on an actual battlefield, and who is known to be an American citizen. Obama’s policy does not require that there is what any reasonable person would describe as threat of an imminent violent attack. The policy “does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future”. That’s a direct quote from the Justice Department policy briefing prepared at the request of Barack Obama.

At heart of the problem of Barack Obama’s policy of targeting Americans to be killed is that it accepts George W. Bush’s contention that terrorism is no longer a crime, but an act of war. War, however, is something that takes place between nations, or within nations where there is a contest between groups over who will control the government. In the case of terrorism linked with Al Quaida, we have an international criminal organization attempting to commit crimes. In the United States, it is illegal for the President to order an assassination – even during the course of a war. It is unconstitutional to impose a punishment for a criminal offense without a trial.

A few Democrats in Congress are speaking up, but most are doing so behind closed doors. Congressman James Moran has publicly stated that he believes the policy may be unconstitutional. 11 Democrats in the U.S. Senate are asking the Obama White House to share with them all its internal policy papers on the issue. Even these Democratic politicial are not taking concrete action to stop the killings of Americans without trial or other due process, however. Most Democrats in Congress aren’t even making mild protests. They’re remaining silent, letting the issue lie, not wanting to appear disloyal to Barack Obama. The ACLU is protesting vigorously, but the ACLU has always been a non-partisan organization. MoveOn is conspicuously demanding that the Macy’s department store end its association with Donald Trump, but the group isn’t making a peep about extrajudicial killings ordered by the President, now that the President is a Democrat.

There are some stirrings among rank-and-file Democrats. The Rude Pundit writes, “Now that a 16-page memo was leaked to NBC News that details the “legal” justification for targeted drone strikes on American citizens abroad, Obama-supporting liberals (like yours truly) have to confront, in vivid, concrete ways, the actions of a White House that, if a Republican were in office, would cause us to spew blood vendettas against those responsible. Oh, wait. When a Republican was in office, we spewed those oaths over the detention and torture of Americans and others. Now we’re up to stone cold murder. We should be even more outraged. The fact that a Democrat is president does not change that.”

Most of the Democrats reacting to the Rude Pundit’s article have supported the protest against Obama, but others have objected that admitting that Obama has broken the law is unacceptable, because it provides Republicans with “the impeachment card”. One Democrat objects to the very idea of a careful approach to protecting civil liberties, writing, “Wonder WHY republicans get away with portraying democrats as weak on national defense ? Here we go again getting bogged down in the “nuances” and complexities of issues…” Which way will the Democratic Party go?

3 comments to Will Democrats Face Obama's Policy Of Killing Americans Without Trial?

  • Jeff

    Great piece Peregrin. I have a few follow-up questions/comments for you or anyone who has something to add.
    – Is there any reason to believe that 5th Amdendment Due Procees makes any differentiation between citizens and non-citizens? The language says “person.” It seems to me like it’s a limit on government, not a guarantee of rights to (only) citizens.
    – When I read the memo (I’ve only read it once), it seemed like the policy advice itself didn’t violated DP (citizen or not) but that the application of it very well could if it were used improperly. From what I got, it seemed like they were just making an analogy to the fact that DP is suspended in a hostage situation. If there’s clear evidence the person is involved in a crime, if that person is incapable of being captured peacefully and he’s a danger to the life/saftey of another, he can be killed without trial. The problem seems like it would arise only if applied _without_ clear evidence of the commission of a crime. Thoughts?

  • Whether or not we can stop the extra-judicial killing of non-Americans abroad (after all, we have a long history of murdering foreigners in wars fought to prop up corporate colonialism — today’s biggest difference is that we are using drones to do the job that Smedley Butler once did), we must certainly stop the extra-judical killings of Americans abroad! That can be a first step to re-evaluating and undoing a century or more of global expansion. We can start here: http://t.co/NY6jvnLo — a We The People petition.

  • manning120

    This is nothing new. Many people, including myself, decided years ago that the “targeted killing” was sufficient reason to impeach Obama, and certainly prevented any knowledgeable person with a conscience from voting for Obama. The mass or mainstream media (MSM), awash in money from people wanting to cover the matter up, barely mentioned the subject; none of the people running for president mentioned it. Amazing!

    The key issues are obscured by comments like “killing Americans abroad.” Those of use who’ve been working on this for years know there was never any prohibition against killing Americans, or killing Americans in the U.S. The policy, enunciated in the document NBC published, is that the president can assassinate people without due process.

    Although drones are extremely important in that they’re revolutionizing military action, it’s misleading to think this is about drones. The president has determined that he can assassinate people of any nationality, anywhere, and the policy does not say it can only be by drone attacks.

    That the vast majority of Americans are only now becoming aware of the presidential assassination policy is amazing. That the president is asserting the policy is even more amazing. Let’s hope real action on this occurs, beginning with the filing of impeachment articles.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>