Skip to main content

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair on Wednesday confirmed that President Obama can and does authorize assassinations of U.S. citizens, if those citizens are overseas. Are we all OK with this? Why no protest from progressive leaders within the Democratic Party? Progressives, leaders, within the Democratic Party? How can anyone still sane and moral in this country not agree with Glenn Greenwald (emphasis added):

Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." They're entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration's policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges -- based solely on the President's claim that they were Terrorists -- produced intense controversy for years.  That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn't Obama's policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind -- not imprisoned, but killed -- produce at least as much controversy?

And yet, the fact is, there is complete silence, by Democrats, Republicans, and the mainstream media (in fact the first exposure of the policy was buried deep inside an article on something else). Well, not complete silence. Apparently one representative at that Blair Congressional hearing, embarrassing as it is for Democrats a Republican, Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), sort of maybe 'criticized' the 'Citizen Assassinations ROK' policy, specifically over CIA involvement in the 2001 assassination of Christian missionaries (mistaken for drug exporters) in Peru:

"The targeting of Americans -- it's a very sensitive issue, but again there's been more information in the public domain than what has been shared with this committee. There is no clarity...what is the legal framework?"

To explain Hoekstra's concern dismissively, apparently FOX is going large on the wholesome, white Christian Bowers family, and how tragic it was that two of them were assassinated (*and it certainly was*), but of course the general policy of assassinations, well, FOX hit show '24' okays that if 'swarthy' actors play the bad guys.

I won't recap the case Glenn Greenwald has ably presented, the argument (obviously true) that assassinations of U.S. citizens, whether at home or abroad, solely on the President's authority violates U.S. law, the Constitution, international law, and just about everything legally progressive since 1215.

My focus is on the lack of any discernable left or progressive concrete reaction to this revelation. Is it even okay, on this up front 'elect more Democrats' blog, to suggest we should not support a political party that sanctions assassination of U.S. citizens? That we should protest, do civil disobedience against, this policy's people and symbols?

Uh, is there any place I can go on the net that is organizing any protests and resistance? What does it say about us and our 'democracy' that the answer is 'NO, not really'?

P.S. & BTW -- Jonathan Turley asks a couple of good questions:

If a president can kill U.S. citizens abroad, why not within the United States? What is the limiting principle beyond the practicalities?

Answers: Sure, go for it. There ain't one.

P.S. 2 -- H/T to Stu Piddy.

Originally posted to fairleft2 on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 01:00 PM PST.


Assassination of U.S. citizens just on Pres. Obama's okay is

22%46 votes
60%123 votes
6%13 votes
10%21 votes

| 203 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site