Month: March 2012

The Obama administration believes that secret executive branch reviews fulfill constitutional due process requirements for when they decide to target suspected al Qaeda leaders even if those individuals are U.S. citizens, according to statements on Monday from Attorney General Eric Holder. 

“Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security,” Holder said. “The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

The Obama administration’s rampant use of unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct assassinations of state enemies has been challenged by some as constituting unlawful killing, or assassination. Holder denied this was the case on the argument that only individuals who present an imminent threat of attack are targeted for these killings-by-executive decree.

“Some have called such operations ‘assassinations.’ They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced.” Holder argued. “Assassinations are unlawful killings…the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful — and therefore would not violate the Executive Order banning assassination or criminal statutes.”

But this doesn’t speak to, for example, the administration’s killing people in northwest Pakistan “who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals,” which the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found to be a deliberate policy of the Obama administration. The high-end estimate for total casualties in the U.S. drone war in Pakistan, according to the Bureau, is 3,019, including up to 815 civilians (175 of them children).

“Not to mince words here, if it is not in a situation of armed conflict, unless it falls into the very narrow area of imminent threat then it is an extra-judicial execution,” Naz Modirzadeh, Associate Director of the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR) at Harvard University, said. “We don’t even need to get to the nuance of who’s who, and are people there for rescue or not. Because each death is illegal. Each death is a murder in that case.”

Of course the problem with Holder’s argument is that the Executive’s decree that an individual is a threat need be backed up by nothing at all. In order to hold that individuals – including U.S. citizens – can be killed unilaterally by the president, Holder had to claim “the operation was conducted in line with war principles.” But in order to accept that, one has to accept that the U.S. is at war indefinitely and without territorial boundaries.

The argument, clearly anathema to the Constitution’s mandates and the spirit of checks and balances, has gained slightly more attention since September of last year when Anwar al-Awlaki, an alleged member of al-Qaeda, was one of three U.S. citizens murdered from the sky in one of Obama’s drones.

Holder would not speak to the specific case of the Awlaki murder, but stated that the administration holds as a requirement for targeted assassination that individuals cannot feasibly be captured. But that’s probably not the case with Awlaki. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit with the Obama administration on behalf of the father of Awlaki who objected to his being on a “kill list.” Awlaki resided in a country with a U.S.-allied government and extradition could conceivably have taken place. But the Obama administration had the case dismissed on a technicality.

The war on terror is being used as an excuse to disregard the right of individuals, even U.S. citizens, to defend themselves in court against accusations made in secret by the government. The authors of the Constitution explicitly denounced such behavior and made it illegal. Unfortunately, there is little chance the political leadership in America will be tried and prosecuted for these crimes.

Update: Kevin Gosztola points out Holder’s legal justification “wholly ignores Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who declared in the Supreme Court ruling on the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case that ‘a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens.'”

Yesterday, Daily Kos posted the sad news that Jeff Huber died. Huber, a retired Navy commander, loved to skewer the powerful and the pretentious, but he never let outrage diminish his wit. If you have never sampled his inimitable blend of humor and insight, take a moment to enjoy some of the following:

Pentagon Propaganda Programmers Pardoned; Pro-War News at Eleven
Get Over It Getting Over Over There
Bumbling in Bananastan
Bin Laden: Dead and Loving It
Dumb and Dumber Wars

Huber’s Antiwar.com archive has more of the barbs that made him a favorite of our staffers and readers. RIP.

Speaking before a broad collection of the Israeli Lobby at AIPAC, President Obama followed up a week of repeated threats to attack Iran by warning of “loose talk” about attacking Iran.

We learned last week that Israel, the presumptive aggressor in he upcoming war, won’t warn the United States before starting a war that US officials have already committed us to join. But suppose President Obama decides to start the war somewhere along the line – will he be any more likely to warn the United States before doing so?

Recent history certainly leaves open some doubts. Last week US ground troops were attacked in Aden, Yemen, despite repeated Obama Administration insistences that ground troops would not be sent to Yemen. The US Pacific Commander Admiral Willard let several cats out of the bag in reporting on US special forces already operating in five countries, including India, none of which were known to have US ground troops.

In October President Obama announced the deployment of US ground troops to Uganda to fight Christian militants, with no public dialogue beforehand, and last month announced, after the fact, that those troops had fanned out into several neighboring nations. When jumping into the Libyan Civil War last year, President Obama used a UN call for a no-fly zone as justification, and openly fought Congress to avoid ever seeking Congressional authorization.

Though President Bush was no less unilateral about his use of military aggression, in retrospect it seems that his confidence about the inherent virtue and praiseworthiness of military adventure at least kept him very public about his decisions, and invasions such as the 2003 attack on Iraq were prefaced with months of brow-beating and lying to convince the public of the wisdom of the action.

President Obama’s administration has eagerly proffered lies about Iran’s “threat” to the American public here and there over the past several years, but has done so in the context of sanctions while constantly insisting that the military option is a “last choice” and not the preferred action. Even today’s comment about “loose talk” suggests that the US decision to go to war is liable to come with little to no public discussion beforehand.

Obama has never seemed anywhere near so interested in conning the public into supporting his wars. In December 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton openly mocked the notion that massive public opposition could affect US foreign policy, insisting no amount of popular discontent would keep them from continuing to occupy Afghanistan. In this environment of secrecy the American public may well be the last to know about a US attack on Iran.

Despite the words of friendship, the diverging perspectives of the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government on key issues in the Middle East – the Arab uprisings, the Palestinian issue and the Iranian nuclear program – are profound.

The dispute on the nuclear issue is centered on red lines. Israel, like the Bush administration, considers a nuclear capability in Iran a red line. It argues that the only acceptable guarantee that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon is for Iran to have no enrichment program.

The Obama administration puts the red line not at enrichment – which is permitted under international law – but at nuclear weapons. This is a clearer, more enforceable red line that also has the force of international law behind it.

While expressing his sympathy and friendship with Israel, Obama did not yield his red line at AIPAC. With the backing of the US Military, he has stood firm behind weaponization rather than weapons capability as the red line.

He said: “I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon (emphasis added), I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say.”

This is crucial because it is essentially a question of war and peace.

Critically, Obama’s rejection of containment at AIPAC was in the context of containing a nuclear-armed Iran, not a nuclear capable Iran.

He said: “Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

Nowhere in the speech is he aligning himself, or even mentioning, the Israeli red line of “nuclear capability.”

The President’s tough words regarding his readiness to use military action is all in the context of preventing a nuclear weapon in Iran, not a nuclear capability. Strikingly, the president uses the D word – diplomacy – more than the M word – military action – in his speech (even though he primarily presents it as move that enabled greater sanctions on Iran.)

The Israeli red line is a fast track to an unnecessary and counterproductive war. This is why the US military and Obama so adamantly opposes this red line – because it ensures both war and a nuclear-armed Iran down the road.