Guest blogged by Ernest A. Canning
“There’s no difference between one’s killing and making decisions that will send others to kill. It’s exactly the same thing, or even worse.” – Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir
In a March 25, 2009 article, “Prosecute or Perish,” in which I urged that “the survival of our Constitutional Democracy may hinge on factually justified criminal prosecutions of the Bush/Cheney cabal,” and again in “Fixing the Facts and Legal Opinions Around the Torture Policy,” I took dead aim at the sophistry employed by President Barack Obama to evade his constitutionally mandated obligation to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The same Harvard Law School-educated President who said that, in torture, America had lost its “moral bearings,” suggested we must only look forward — an “illogical formulation [that] was incompatible with the very essence of the rule of law.”
I was naive. I thought the President was merely evading his constitutional obligation out of political expediency; that he actually intended to restore the rule of law and salvage what was left of our nation’s honor.
A growing body of evidence, including confirmation contained in the recently exposed Afghan “Pentagon Papers,” suggests the President did not look back at his predecessor’s war crimes because he saw, in the failure to prosecute, the ground work for his own round of “Unitary Executive” lawlessness — an expanded, illegal and increasingly covert “war on terror” in which hundreds, perhaps thousands of paramilitary assassins, operating in secret and beyond the rule of law, carry out targeted killings of “suspected” terrorists on a global scale — a program that has already produced massive collateral casualties amongst innocent civilians who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Worse, as revealed by a newly filed lawsuit, the Obama administration has moved beyond the Bush/Cheney cabal’s assertion of unchecked Executive lawlessness in the form of extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention and torture. The Obama administration has now not only asserted a right to assassinate anyone that the Executive branch labels a terrorist, including U.S. citizens, but has gone so far as to place lawyers in legal jeopardy should they seek a court order to block an extrajudicial execution unless the executive branch grants the lawyer permission to do so…
Slippery Slope Leading to Total Obliteration of Our Founding Principles
“Every civilization finds its necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values.” — Golda Meir as portrayed by Lynn Cohen in Steven Spielberg’s Academy nominated “Best Picture” Munich. (See trailer below)
Although it was based on an actual event — Operation Wrath of God in which the Israeli Mossad engaged in targeting killings of suspected members of Black September as a means to avenge the murder of Israeli athletes during the 1972 Olympics, eventually killing an innocent waiter in Norway — Munich was a work of historical fiction. Thus, it is not entirely clear that Meir actually said that it is necessary to compromise a civilization’s values.
But, over the course of a film in which the protagonist, Mossad assassin Avner Kaufman (played by Eric Bana) undergoes a moral transformation as doubts as to the guilt of his targets lead to depression, self-loathing and remorse, what becomes clear is that a civilized society is based on certain core principles. Those principles cannot be the subject of “negotiated compromise” because to compromise those core principles is to shred the very fabric upon which a civilized society is based.
In our little Republic, those principles were enunciated in the Declaration of Independence [emphasis added]:
They were again embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution [emphasis added]:
After a bloody Civil War those principles were reiterated yet again in the Fourteenth Amendment [emphasis added] — “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
ACLU/CCR Lawsuit Reveals How Far Down the Rabbit Hole We’ve Traveled
As reported by Vince Warren, director of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in a public email:
The suit was filed after the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) failed to act on an ACLU/CCR request.
OFAC’s Director, Adam Szubin, responded to the lawsuit by promising that OFAC “will work with the ACLU to ensure that the legal services can be delivered.”
The ACLU and CCR then issued a joint reply:
In his public email, Warren not only addressed the First and Fifth Amendment grounds for the lawsuit, but powerfully added:
Extrajudicial executions do more than simply undermine our collective security.
If the Executive branch can target any individual, declare on the basis of secret (and perhaps erroneous) evidence that he or she is a terrorist and then summarily execute them without due process, ours is no longer the nation that was founded on the immutable principle of self-evident and unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We are no longer who we were.
UPDATE 08/07/2010: Wars a Crime.Org reported that, in the wake of the ACLU/CCR lawsuit, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) “introduced H.R. 6010, which prohibits targeted killings of U.S. citizens.â€
H.R. 6010 falls well short of what I’ve come to expect from the Ohio Congressman whose past presidential campaigns were models of speaking truth to power.
First, the Fifth Amendment provides [emphasis added]:
Extrajudicial executions, whether carried out by teams of assassins or in the form of predator drone strikes, are, according to U.N. investigator Phillip Alston, war crimes.
So why does Kucinich limit H.R. 6010’s prohibition on targeted killings to U.S. citizens?
Second, Kucinich was the only member of Congress who bore the courage to read aloud on the floor of Congress articles calling for the impeachment of Richard B. Cheney. Unless and until he does the same thing with respect to Barack H. Obama, a fellow Democrat, his reaction to executive murder will smack of hypocrisy.
Kudos to “Mick†for calling H.R. 6010 to my attention.
Munich trailer follows…
Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California state bar since 1977. Mr. Canning has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science as well as a juris doctor. He is also a Vietnam vet (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968).
Brad, I’m guessing you’re coming to the same conclusion I did 12 months ago- that Obama is not a progressive. In fact, by his choice of nominees and appointees like Geithner, Bernanke, Summers, etc I’d say the guy looks more and more like one of the oligarchs. I’ve listed many of the betrayals at betrayedbyobama.blogspot.com
Republicans stab you in the front and Democrats stab you in the back. Don’t waste your vote….vote third party.
Once again, right on point from Mr. Canning.
“We are no longer who we were.”
One could add “not even close.” I joke about being in upside-down alternate bizarro-universe, but the truth of our country’s descent into tyranny, repression, and oligarchy- the exact opposite of what we’re supposed to be about- is all too real.
“We are no longer who we were.”
A more accurate statement would be “you never were who you were”.
Well, Carlyle Moulton, despite the contradiction that arises when one compares the words of Thomas Jefferson to the anomaly that most of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, I think there’s a fundamental difference between the nation envisioned by the constitution and 21st Century Amerika which I suspect would not be recognized as remotely resembling what the likes of Jefferson envisioned.
I keep thinking of the twist on an old Mort Saul joke I heard a few years back.
In the beginning of the nation we had Washington, Adams, Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence. Today, the top guys are Bush and Cheney.
You know what that proves?
Darwin was wrong!
It proves that the United States of America is in decline, hopelessly corrupt, and increasingly incompetent. If the USA was a medical patient, the diagnosis would be dementia.
so are we to read ,one day soon of Amerikan “contractors” with “fake” passports executing a “terrorist” in his motel room ? all caught on CCTV ?
Obama is GWB with a command of the English language and some melanin.
Kucinich Bill will Stop the Extrajudicial Killing of Americans
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/54369
RobertM @ 1 said:
Two points for the record, Robert.
1) This article was written by Ernest Canning, not me (though, as almost always, I edited first, and don’t disagree with the article by and large).
2) What took you so long to realize Obama’s lack of progressiveness? That was made clear here long ago. Long before the ’08 election in fact. To suggest that I have only now “come to that…conclusion” would suggest you haven’t been reading The BRAD BLOG for too terribly long, or not paying terribly close attention! 🙂
Ernest@4 said:
Darwin is still right on. It’s just that humans have not lived up to their own high regard for themselves. Sadly, dishonesty, raw aggression, and accumulation of power is still a more effective survival strategy than enlightened reason, long-term common-good planning, and altruism. Until our institutions encourage the latter and punish the former, I’m afraid we are a dead-end species.
Cosimo DiRondo @9
This link sounds a lot like what you just said…I certainly looks like you may be right.
Cosimo, the Darwin was wrong thing is a “joke”! It’s not supposed to be taken literally.
Mort Saul used the same joke to compare Nixon to Washington, Adams and Jefferson.
Ya dig?
Hello Ernest,
We live in dark times in which evil rules whether you believe it is either from secular or religious origin. We probably will not defeat or even remove any significant portion in our lifetime so like the good Germans of the thirties and forties we as so cursed.
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…”
Voted for hope,
nothing changed.
Guess we got fooled again.
Hey, Ernest, my home-made pro-peace sign had a photo of Bush next to a chimpanzee (apologies to the chimps!) and I thought myself VERY clever to come up with the tagline ‘Darwin was wrong!’. Guess my wit plays in good company, and more to the point, I am SADLY uneducated with the humor stylings of the greats of the 50s, 60s, & 70s. 😉 Am I dating myself? Ernest-you are my HERO!
The unanswered question: Is President Obama genuinely lacking in progressive values, or is he literally afraid for his life if he seriously challenges the corporate-governmental authority? The answer, I believe, is both. Obama was selected by the real powers in this nation as their “human face” to further institutionalize their control.
Caleb,
I think you’re mostly correct but I don’t look at it in terms of Obama fearing for his life if he ceases being a puppet and becomes his own man like JFK did post-Bay of Pigs Invasion. I just don’t think Obama has it in him. He’s much more of the “go along to get along” type. There’s not a progressive bone in his body.
You’re right that he was selected by the real powers in the U.S. (the billionaires who run this country from the Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission mostly) and his purpose is like you said. Obama is there to harness the desire held by many Americans for genuine social change and run it right into the ground or into dead-end alleys that are safe for the ruling elite. Sadly, it isn’t just Obama who is a marionette but any of the major candidates from both hardly-dissimilar parties. They’re all in the waistcoat pocket of the Rockefellers and Waltons of this country as nobody who reaches that level of name recognition could be where they are without already having metaphorically sold their soul. That is why it is absolutely critical that private money is 100% removed from American politics. Ultimately Obama’s presidency, far from lending legitimacy to the system, will be remembered by honest objective historians as being a glaring example of why public funding for elections is sorely needed, a great example of what’s wrong with American politics, the inflatable candidate, just add the backing of the ruling class and presto! Airy promises of change followed by reinforcing the status quo with a smile.