ilqusionment:

jonathan-cunningham:

At this point, I didn’t believe it was possible, but the Obama administration has just reached an all-new low in its abysmal civil liberties record.  In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki’s father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims.  That’s not surprising:  both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality.  But what’s most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is “state secrets”:  in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are “state secrets,” and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.

I never thought I could seriously type the title above.  It sounds crazy right?  The President running an assassination program where he can, without judicial or legislative oversight, kill any US citizen.  If Greenwald didn’t link to the legal document above, I wouldn’t have believed it.  Nothing can be done so long as the court sees it as a “state secret” so the only recourse is to elect another President in 2012.

And in case you didn’t read the linked Washington Post article inside, it’s because he’s using it to hunt down a terrorist who happens to be a US citizen. It says nothing about assassinating any random american. They’re talking about a “Shoot on sight” policy for al-Aulaqi, who happens to be a US citizen.

Oh, and Bush started this.

Greenwald responds to you in the linked piece:

As a reminder:  Obama supporters who are dutifully insisting that the President not only has the right to order American citizens killed without due process, but to do so in total secrecy, on the ground that Awlaki is a Terrorist and Traitor, are embracing those accusations without having the slightest idea whether they’re actually true.  All they know is that Obama has issued these accusations, which is good enough for them.  That’s the authoritarian mind, by definition:  if the Leader accuses a fellow citizen of something, then it’s true — no trial or any due process at all is needed and there is no need even for judicial review before the decreed sentence is meted out, even when the sentence is death. 

For those reciting the “Awlaki-is-a-traitor” mantra, there’s also the apparently irrelevant matter that Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution (the document which these same Obama supporters pretended to care about during the Bush years) provides that “No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”  Treason is a crime that the Constitution specifically requires be proven with due process in court, not by unilateral presidential decree.  And that’s to say nothing of the fact that the same document — the Constitution — expressly forbids the deprivation of life “without due process of law.”  This one sentence from the Post article nicely summarizes the state of Obama’s civil liberties record:

The Obama administration has cited the state-secrets argument in at least three cases since taking office - in defense of Bush-era warrantless wiretapping, surveillance of an Islamic charity, and the torture and rendition of CIA prisoners.

And now, in this case, Obama uses this secrecy and immunity weapon not to shield Bush lawlessness from judicial review, but his own.

Additionally, there’s no actual evidence al-Awlaki is guilty of anything:

Note, too, this passage from the Associated Press’ article:

Counterterrorism officials regard al-Awlaki as a terrorist operative, not just a preacher, but they have revealed few specifics.

Who needs to see evidence or hear “specifics” in an authoritarian culture?  Despite this lack of “specifics,” there is no shortage of Americans running around dutifully condemning Awlaki as a “Terrorist” and calling for his death.  How, despite the lack of “specifics,” do they know this?  Because the President has said so, and that, by definition, more than suffices for good authoritarians — even when it comes to endorsing the presidentially-imposed death penalty on their fellow citizens without the slightest pretense of due process.  Then, from the AP article, there is also this:

Another option, given al-Awlaki’s increasingly violent sermons and his collaboration with al-Qaida’s propaganda efforts, would be charging him with supporting terrorism. But that charge carriesonly a 15-year prison sentence, leaving the administration open to questions about how the president can authorize the CIA to essentially impose the death penalty for such a crime.

So the only crime for which there appears to be any known evidence is one which not only raises serious First Amendment issues (“violent sermons” are clearly protected speech and participating in “propaganda” sure sounds like it is), but also one that carries only a “15-year prison sentence.”  Apparently, though, if the law does not allow for application of the death penalty to a citizen whom Barack Obama wants dead, then all of that annoying “process” about indictments and evidence and trials and the like will simply be discarded with the imperious wave of a presidential hand and the death penalty imposed anyway. 

There’s no excusing this, and the Obama Department Of Justice IS arguing that any person, including US citizens, may be targeted for assassination if the president accuses them of terrorism- no actual evidence required.