Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Debunking the Ridiculous Rhetoric that Obama is an Assassin Who Targets Innocent Americans
If Americans were queried about their vision of ideal government in a dangerous world where America was not adored by all, there would be as many different responses as there are people depending on their worldview and political ideology, but reasonably they would break down into a few groups. Conservatives would relish oligarchy with the masses toiling to fund global military conquest to impose corporate dominance over the entire world, and religious fundamentalists would imagine a population bound by biblical edict and enslaved to fund an onward Christian army to exterminate Islam in preparation for Christ’s Second Coming. Pragmatic liberals might dream of economic opportunity and civil rights for all with a powerful military to defend the homeland and, as a last resort, protect their interests from aggression abroad. Within the latter group is segment envisioning a world with no animosity toward America and no need for proactive military intervention to protect the homeland from enemies devoted to destroying Americans, and their rhetoric informs their naïveté.
Unfortunately, America does have enemies and although there is no need for corporate or religious imperialism and conquest, expecting this government to ignore imminent threats from abroad informs a worldview unattached from reality. The world is not, and will never be, inhabited by peace-loving people with adoration for all things American, and one would think the terrorist attacks on 911 and subsequent attempts by al-Qaeda affiliates would afford the government leeway to protect America and its people before known terrorists carry out attacks on America. The recent furor over the use of unmanned drones to kill known terrorists abroad is understandable on many levels, but the rhetoric being used by the President’s critics to portray him as an assassin is ridiculous on its face, and assumes a devious Presidential plot to kill innocent American citizens as if for sport, or as one malcontent claimed, “a person with a killing technology fetish.”
First and foremost, no reasonable American condones killing innocent civilians, Americans or foreigners, and there are no reasonable Americans driven by a killing fetish to deprive Americans of their due process; even murderers deserve a trial by a jury of the peers. However, to assume it is even possible to capture an al-Qaeda mastermind such as al-Awlaki in a country like Yemen, and give him due process with a jury of his peers, is absurd. Al-Awlaki was American born, but when he inspired the Fort Hood shooter and underwear bomber to kill innocent Americans, his civil liberties as an American citizen were forfeited, including “due process.” Even if al-Awlaki was captured in a foreign nation, would a jury of his peers be 12 Americans he vowed to kill, or 12 al-Qaeda operatives from Yemen where he took up residence, planned and directed the killings of innocent American citizens?
The legalities of targeted drone killings aside, it is the critics’ rhetoric that bears scrutiny. The people who conflate targeting killing of al-Qaida terrorists in foreign countries with “targeting American citizens” is tantamount to the NRA falsely claiming the President is coming to “take your guns,” or the religious right claiming mandatory contraception coverage is “trampling their religious freedoms.” Most reasonable Americans with a shred of humanity agree that any killing is bad, but there is a marked difference between “targeting American citizens” and killing al-Qaeda operatives posing an imminent threat to innocent Americans. Except for neo-conservatives and religious fundamentalists, no American condones indiscriminate killing of Muslims whether they are born in America or not, and yet the drone strikes have become President Obama’s unwarranted assassination of American citizens according to ideologues stuck in liberal purity-land.
It is a credit to America that there is even the possibility of having a discourse about using lethal force against al-Qaeda terrorists without due process, and Americans should be concerned about government engaging in targeted killing, but they should also be concerned that terrorist leaders can plan attacks on America and the President being powerless to take action against them because of due process, or their country of origin. Attorney General Eric Holder said, “We say that we only take these kinds of actions when there’s an imminent threat, when capture is not feasible and when we are confident we’re doing so in a way that’s consistent with the law,” and the fact the White House released legal arguments for using the drones to kill terrorists belies that the President is on an American citizen killing spree.
Americans, and especially those questioning the ethics of drone attacks, must be aware that the people planning to carry out attacks on America are bad people. The extremists who plan to kill innocent Americans have shown their penchant for creating as much death and destruction as possible out of religious fervor, and they are hell bent on killing Americans in great numbers. In 2009 there were three witnesses reporting that a nuclear mushroom cloud became Hezbollah’s banner symbol as they warned Israel “The mushroom cloud is on its way! The real Holocaust is on its way,” and regardless if they possess a nuclear device or not — yet, their goal is detonating one over Israel, or Manhattan. These are not reasonable people, and one hopes this government is monitoring them and seriously considering the use of lethal force to stop them at the first sign of an imminent attack regardless they are born in Lebanon, Yemen, or upstate New York.
This is a complex, emotional issue for all Americans, and yet there can be no reasonable debate on any level when a term like “targeting American citizens” is the primary talking point. One would hope that when intelligence about an impending attack reaches the highest levels of government, the last thing the men deciding to use lethal force take into account is whether or not the al-Qaida planner, or underwear bomber, is an American-born or Yemeni citizen. It is doubtful that the families of the three-thousand victims of 911 would be torn over President Bush ordering a drone strike on an American-born terrorist piloting one of the planes that flew into the Trade Towers, or President Obama ordering the killing of al-Awlaki before directing the Fort Hood shooter or underwear bomber over Detroit to commit acts of terror. No American knows what goes into the decision-making process leading to a targeted drone strike, except that it is not President Obama deliberately targeting American citizens for death, and it is pure folly to think terrorists will stop to reflect on whether their attack will kill innocent Muslims or Christians; they just kill Americans.
There is one other aspect those concerned about the so-called “killing of American citizens” seriously need to consider. When a terrorist who was fortunate enough to be born in America brings his son along and joins an extremist group and plans, directs, or intends to carry out a mass killing of American civilians, it is reasonable to assume they are no longer Americans, they are an imminent danger. Maybe in an idealistic Utopia they would surrender to law enforcement to receive their Constitutional right to due process, but this is the real world, and they pose a real threat, and one hopes the President takes real steps to stop them before they kill real Americans.
Shortly after the attacks on 9/11, then-president George W. Bush said that America would go anyplace in ...
Most people have had the unenviable task of cleaning up another person's mess, and to exacerbate the sit ...
Not only did Attorney General Eric Holder have to write poor Kentucky Republican Rand Paul a letter answ ...
Congress has the classified version of the Obama Administration's Drone memo. Congress ...
An ideology is a comprehensive vision, and a way of looking at things, that when practiced by an adheren ...
Mark Phillips
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 11:40 am
If the President were going around lobbing drone missiles at Americans willy-nilly, do you really think that Rush Limbaugh wouldn’t be having a drone enema as we speak?
Sharin Khosa
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 11:49 am
“Al-Awlaki was American born, but when he inspired the Fort Hood shooter and underwear bomber to kill innocent Americans, his civil liberties as an American citizen were forfeited, including “due process.” Even if al-Awlaki was captured in a foreign nation, would a jury of his peers be 12 Americans he vowed to kill, or 12 al-Qaeda operatives from Yemen where he took up residence, planned and directed the killings of innocent American citizens?
The legalities of targeted drone killings aside, it is the critics’ rhetoric that bears scrutiny. The people who conflate targeting killing of al-Qaida terrorists in foreign countries with “targeting American citizens” is tantamount to the NRA falsely claiming the President is coming to “take your guns,” or the religious right claiming mandatory contraception coverage is “trampling their religious freedoms.””
This cannot be any clearer.
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Its hilarious the RWNJ’s are now crying over Al-Awlaki’s death. He was a rill murican they cry.
If Obama was Bush, they would be asking Bush why he hadnt killed him yet. They would be asking why he was not being bombed from altitude. They wanted blood for 5 years right up till Obama was elected, then spilling blood was a horrible thing
Lisa Lockett
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 11:56 am
I can’t help but think that many of the people complaining about this would like us to wage war with Iran, sending thousands of young American’s there to die in the process.
Christopher Muir
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 12:10 pm
Perhaps you and I haven’t been reading the same articles, but regardless, when you speak of Al-Awlaki having lost his rights when he “inspired” the Fort Hood and underwear bombers, you and I must part company. It is precisely these situations that require a jury, and no, that doesn’t mean a jury of Al-Queda, but rather a representative demographic sample of regular Americans. But then you completely ignore the killing of this man’s sixteen year-old son, two full weeks later. There is absolutely no excuse for this assassination. What’s more, you fail to deal with the precedent this sets for the next President, and it takes no imagination, and little memory, to realize that whatever conscience Obama possesses, the next figure to sit in the Oval Office might have a substantially weaker moral code. This President spoke eloquently of the (moral) need for transparency when he ran in ’08, but we find out about targeted assassinations throu leaks, and we find the executive branch’s rationale for them through further leaks. This behavior speaks to a lack of moral character, and is a disturbing development that you can’t white-wash away simply because our mutual enemies have found a scandal with traction. Targetted killings of U.S. citizens must stop, now. And if we as a people, after careful deliberation, find them necessary, then the program can begin again, in the full light of day, and the law.
Daniel
Feb. 10th, 2013 at 12:54 am
It has nothing to do with what he’s done. It has everything to do with what he’s still doing. He was still with al-Qaida, still plotting to kill Americans. It’s an ‘assassination’ just like police killing an armed robber is an ‘assassination’. He’s in the process of committing a crime, is likely heavily armed, and there’s little to no chance of actually apprehending him. Bombs away.
Tom
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 12:22 pm
The people complaining about this don’t have any skin in the game.
Smitty PA
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 12:24 pm
Thank you for this article. I’m a Liberal who will barely discuss drones at all because of other Libs shouting me down as an immoral baby killer agitating for totalitarianism.
K from Bellingham
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 12:39 pm
More typical Republican selective outrage of ” President Blackenstein “. Imagine if 9/11 had occurred during Obama’s Presidency. His approval rating certainly wouldn’t jump to 90 %. The entire country came together for a moment, rallied around GWB to heal. Would that happen now ? Hell no.
Middle Molly
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 1:27 pm
And the economic crisis that Obama inherited might be seen as a national crisis on the level of 9/11. But he was trashed and undermined from the earliest days of his presidency.
JJM
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 1:03 pm
I am as anti-war as anyone, but this hysteria over drones is peculiar. Where was the hysteria over sending thousands to the Gulf twice, killing thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis–along with thousands of Americans– both times?
How many US soldiers have these drones gotten killed? How many innocent bystanders, compared to actual invasions?
The deterrent factor of these drones should also be noted. Imagine how you would feel as a plotter against the US, knowing that you might be a target? Maybe you’d be just a little bit deterred?
Sure it is creepy, sure it is unnerving to imagine being targeted. But we should work for proper oversight. I have a lot of confidence in Obama’s judgment. An oversight court might be better.
But, just think if we had had to use troops to invade Yemen to get Al-Awaki, or actually invade Pakistan? Where would we be right now in numbers killed on both sides?
El Zato
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 4:27 pm
“The deterrent factor of these drones should also be noted. Imagine how you would feel as a plotter against the US, knowing that you might be a target? Maybe you’d be just a little bit deterred?”
No.
Christopher
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 1:10 pm
I’m glad to see a liberal site take this position. The MSNBC folks are among those most critical of drones and seem to be implying the argument to which you are refering.
Middle Molly
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 1:25 pm
I’m always very suspicious of issues that the uber-lefties start to use against Obama. I start to small a rat, and I usually wonder if the uber-leftie agitation is in some way coming from the RW. I think that attacking the Dems from the left IS a trick of the RW in an attempt to divide Dems/liberals/progressives.
I’m not crazy about these drones and I would like to see some standards about their use. But I do NOT believe that Obama is a bad guy killing people willy nilly.
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Thee uber lefties like rushbo needs outrage to fill their pockets.The only difference is we call hem out while the right lives by rushbos rants
hs
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 1:48 pm
Of course, the important difference between the “take your guns” claims by the NRA and the “targeting of American citizens” claims addressed here is that no one is denying the factual basis of the latter – the only debate is whether those actions are justified. My concern is that even if moral and legal justification for strikes against Americans exists, as long as these actions are performed without adequate transparency and oversight we set a dangerous precedent for future administrations. It’s not simply misplaced paranoia to worry about how these powers will be handled by a future administration that considers, say, social justice and environmental activists as terrorists.
Anne
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 2:22 pm
As much as I hate the destruction that drones cause, anyone–American or not–who makes a conscious decision to foment terror or commit terroristic acts against this country also has to understand the risks of not even being afforded a fair trial. They are extremely lucky if they do get one. As for the outrage, how many of the folks vocalizing it were equally concerned about the same issue during the Bush administration?
Christopher Muir
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 3:47 pm
I was one of those writing repeatedly during the Bush administration over executive overreach. And I find it hypocritical that most on the Left have been so quiet with this latest example of presidential abuse. The very fact that the assassinations were brought to public attention through leaks speaks volumes about its legitimacy. The fact that the legal arguments to justify a clearly illegal act also had to be leaked adds more concern that the actions are indeed unethical. And to those who keep arguing that people lose their rights when they speak out against the actions of our government, I would point you any number of books on U.S. policy over the last two hundred years, where we have repeatedly commited unspeakable acts of terrorism against any and all who opposed the corporate takeover over their homes and resources. What’s new here (if one ignores our goveernment’s past attacks on Blacks, Native Americans, Japanese Americans and Hispanic Americans when their interests collided with those of industry) is our willingness to target our own people as enemies of the state. Sixteen year-old boys are not enemies of the state, and even if they were, they must be accorded the same due process, to ensure the legitimacy of the state’s use of force. I am a patriot. We have been a force for good, at home and abroad, on many occasions. But our history speaks to where that greatness emanates from, and it has seldom been from the state, until cajoled by the people. And it is the people of the U.S. who are under threat. I would end by echoing a point brought up earlier: it is all good and well when the enemy is clealy such to dispense with the safeguards to our liberties. But what of other “terrorists”? We have companies that have collectively destroyed over ninety-percent of our old growth forrests, trees which have been growing for four and five times as long as we’ve been a nation. And they call it progress. Yet eco-saboutours are terrorists. Am I next? Are you?
Gnomic
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 4:11 pm
As I understand it, the use of signature drone strikes does not confirm target identity, just that the target engages in a pattern of activity that may be terrorist like. It is unclear what these rules are or how accurate they are.
However, the current administration has redefined imminent to mean whenever, and is bombing countries in violation of the laws of war. Former military and CIA leaders have raised concerns. When China uses drone in Tibet or Russia attacks a defector in America and justifies it as consistent with our use of drones by civilian agencies outside a declared conflict area, well, WW3 may start with drones.
Lets kill our enemies, but lets do so in a smart way. In a democracy, we are accountable for the actions of our government. Torture and assassination. Are not tools that should be used without due diligence and certainly not used wholesale.
El Zato
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 4:26 pm
What if I told you every human being on earth has the right to a fair trial? What if I told you the life and death of a person shouldn’t be decided by a military commander? What if I told you most countries (like the one I was born and live) have abolished death penalty for considering it barbaric, criminal and counter productive? What if I told you that green lighting selective assassinations of terrorists can also be used against ecologist and human rights activists that also happen to oppose imperialist American policies around the world? Who can assure these would not be use to protect American corporate interests abroad? What if I told you that we elected a known “anti-American” leader because he does a good job as president and because it was our sovereign democratic choice? What if American corporate media has chosen to hate him? Does that make him a “terrorist”? What if I told you meddling in the internal affairs of other countries can cause them to fall in chaos, civil war, hunger and suffering for millions?
Charlotte
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 4:36 pm
Last time I looked, treason is still a capital offense.
hs
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 5:30 pm
Last time I looked, American citizens accused of a capital offense are still guaranteed due process by the Bill of Rights.
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 5:51 pm
Is that why we have had Wanted dead or alive posters since forever?
Elli
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 5:56 pm
18 USC § 2381 – Treason
“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
There you go hs and all the others who are on his level of “reasoning”…nothing in here about a trial, nothing about any rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the Constitution or anything else. If you are a traitor to your country (and Al-Awlaki is/was such a traitor) you risk death or imprisonment. Death just happened to get him first.
UncaJoe
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 6:15 pm
Due Process under the U.S. Constitution’s 5th Amendment seems to be in direct conflict with your theory on treason.
Virginia Nancarvis
Feb. 11th, 2013 at 1:12 am
The Constitution: Article I
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
The Fifth Amendment includes this exception:
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 11th, 2013 at 8:13 am
I agree with your premise, but always remember that it was determined to be constitutional when George W. Bush pushed the patriot act through. You’ll notice that there is a clause called, the public safety may require it. Until you get rid of that statement Supreme Court will allow what is happening to stand.
RoyalJelly
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 6:20 pm
The article conveniently ignores the killing of Al-Awlaki’s 16 year old son, who was guilty only by being related, and the very numerous civilian casualties of people who happen to be in the vicinity. Jon Stewart got it right, the whole definition of what is an “imminent threat” is wildly vague. And you know the potential for misuse of this tactic is enormous when Reublican politicians talk about “taking out” Julian Assange with a drone.
Stuart McDonald
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 6:29 pm
I’m proud to be a “DRONER”, the new term used by Obamabots for anyone critical of Obama’s drone-killing-without-due-process policies. Obamabots falsely believe that Obama has done and can do no wrong — despite tons of evidence to the contrary in many areas. Having total faith and trust in Obama is based on unwarranted idol-worship, not facts.
If you too are a “DRONER”, please sign this petition. And please wish/hope/pray with me that all those who believe that the US killing with no due process is okay, please let them all experience a personal and profound lack of fundamental due process to show them just how necessary it is for everyone in order to have a just and fair society and world.
act.credoaction.com/campa...
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 6:51 pm
Hilarious! The people who used to want the muslims dead are now asking for them to be protected!
GMA215
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 9:11 pm
WASHINGTON — A 16-year-old American boy killed in an Obama administration drone strike “should have [had] a far more responsible father,” Obama campaign senior adviser Robert Gibbs says in a new video released by the group We Are Change.
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda propagandist killed by a U.S. drone a year ago. But the child was killed in a separate strike some two weeks after his father was killed. Gibbs wasn’t entirely familiar with the situation, and didn’t know that al-Awlaki’s son was killed two weeks after his father was killed, a person familiar with his thinking at the time he was interviewed told HuffPost. We Are Change bills itself as a non-partisan media organization “working to expose corruption.”
“I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business,” Gibbs, the former White House press secretary, told the interviewer from We Are Change, when asked to justify “an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial — and, he’s underage, he’s a minor.”…www.huffingtonpost.com/20...
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 9:28 pm
But its jkust fine to drop bombs from rill airplanes and kill indiscriminately isnt it. How many thousands have been killed and now you worry about one?
Franky Lamouche
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 9:47 pm
BLACK OPS – u can’t ask us to give up r guns then spy on us with drones & threaten to kill us anytime u want – @frankylamouche tweet.
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 10:08 pm
Who is asking you to give up your guns?
Erin
Feb. 9th, 2013 at 11:49 pm
I’m just not sure we should take the gov’t at their word every time they claim somebody is a terrorist. Look at all the innocent folk that are were/are being held at Gitmo that aren’t terrorists. A big whoops on a lot of them. How do we know Al-Awlaki is a terrorist? Just because the gov’t says so? What if they’re wrong? (WMD in Iraq) Al-Awlaki is allowed to say repugnant things. The Supreme Court said so in Brandenburg vs. Ohio. ===> v.gd/47uZFX If this guy was helping plan terrorist plots, then the evidence should be presented. Terrorism is a crime. Americans are entitled to due process. One person should not be in charge of who lives and who dies. That’s not very democracyee.
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 10th, 2013 at 12:20 am
I think Al-Awlaki was pretty well known as a terrorist by his words. And by the fact they have emails along with the admittance of the Ft Hood shooter that he was inspired by him.
Erin
Feb. 10th, 2013 at 2:00 am
Words don’t make you a terrorist. Read the Supreme Court case about the KKK guy vowing revenge on the gov’t. Advocating for something is protected speech. Have you read his emails? What did they say? Got a link to them?
Erin
Feb. 10th, 2013 at 3:50 am
In the final report of the William H. Webster Commission on Ft. Hood, on page 34 it says:
“During the past two years, Aulaqi or his rhetoric may have inspired or played a role in
encouraging at least four known “homegrown” U.S. radicals who took or attempted violent acts
or training: Hasan, Michael Finton, Faisal Shahzad, and Zachary Chesser. For each of them, the
connection with Aulaqi was virtual (although Hasan claimed to have met Aulaqi briefly in the
early 2000s at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia.) The FBI is not aware of any
evidence that Aulaqi instructed any of these individuals to engage in violent acts.”
i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/201...
Then on page 35, the report said:
“Through his website, Aulaqi would answer
mundane questions about Islam for Western followers on topics such as divorce and fasting
during Ramadan. He appeared to understand legal limitations. He was not known directly to
have instructed anyone contacting him through his website to engage in violent action.”
Hmm. Not a ringing endorsement of guilt, huh? It’s not a crime to talk real bad about America. See Brandenburg v. Ohio. It is a crime to plan terror plots. So which was it? Guess we’ll never know because there was no trial. We just killed him because the gov’t said he was a bad ass. That’s a real slippery slope to start traveling down.
Eileen Evans
Feb. 10th, 2013 at 12:51 pm
What rankles me is the Left’s refusal to accept President Obama as a leader and to even consider he knows more than they do. The MSM is absorbed with being adversarial; the public has to consult foreign media to for more accurate context. I can’t wait for Al Jazeera English’s broadcasts.
Drones are just devices equipped with cameras & operated from remote locations. Their primary use was reconnaissance & can save lives in domestic search & rescue efforts.
When that device is equipped with missiles, it becomes a predator drone. The operator can target a building at 101 Main Street. When the predator reaches its destination, the operator sees the target in real time before firing. After firing, the buildings at 99 & 103 Main Street are untouched.
What about the enemy? No one’s dismissing the deaths of innocent civilians who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; but our people don’t stalk & assassinate girls for wanting to learn how to read. This incident is not an anomaly.
Erik Healy
Feb. 10th, 2013 at 5:57 pm
Most important is not what President Obama has or has not done with these powers himself but what some radical neocon (e.g. President Cheney) would be able to do under these dodgy policies (funded by secret budgets) without any real checks/balances from Congress or the Judiciary.
The Judiciary is really our only hope for a counterweight to the President’s war powers. Congress finds itself incapable of letting anything but money determine who gets appointed to important committees (e.g. Michelle Bachman’s reappointment to the House Intelligence Committee). Therefore, the executive branch will never be able to count on an honest overseer from congress.