deBAM

jonathan-cunningham:

It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki.  No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was “considering” indicting him).  Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even has any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt.  When Awlaki’s father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were “state secrets” and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts.  He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner.  When Awlaki’s inclusion on President Obama’s hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that “it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.”

After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it wasthe U.S.).  It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its.  The U.S. thus transformed someone who was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true face to the world.  The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced.

What’s most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government.  Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President’s ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki — including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry’s execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists — criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed. 

We killed a man because we didn’t like the words he said, and no one seems to care.

no one really doubts this guy’s negative or malevolent intent towards the government of the united states, nonetheless, without due process no one can really be sure what crime he committed.  he was an american citizen with first amendment rights to spew whatever hate speech he so chooses (think pastor terry jones/KKK rallies/mel gibson for god’s sake). but under no circumstances may his or their lives be ended “just cause.” the us govt. assassinating its own citizens is simply unprecedented.  and every little step they take without challenge is a step closer they are to do as they see fit with each and every one of us they deem undesireable or threatening. 100 years from now this is history book chapter setting as a turning point for the united states of america, and guaranteed it won’t be a blip on cnn… it’ll be applauded as justice from above.   

Yet looking at the national debate — the emergence of the Tea Party, of the protesters in Manhattan, and prophecies of rioting by the Mayor of New York — you can’t help but feel that something in the U.S. is different now than any time in its history. That change may force America to do something it’s never had to do before: work out which of its two values it holds most dear.

What’s causing this? There are two overarching trends that are converging to force the argument.

The first is income inequality. It’s hard to look at a newspaper, a periodical, or listen to the radio without seeing more and more about inequality in the U.S. And this isn’t just happening because those at the top are winning. In real income terms, those at the bottom have been going backwards.

This trend continues with every passing day given the “jobless recovery” the country is experiencing at the moment. While corporate profits are beginning to return to their pre-Financial Crisis numbers, unemployment is not budging.

Yet simultaneously, the importance of money in politics has grown to its greatest level in the past 50 years. Ever since the 1996 President election, the amount spent in Presidential campaigns has roughly doubled in each subsequent election — $239M in 1996, $343M in 2000, $717M in 2004, and last Presidential Election in 2008, it topped $1.3 trillion. The chart looks exponential.

But it’s not just that the amount of money that’s required. What has changed is who has a voice in the process. In 2010, a hugely important decision was made by the Supreme Court in a split decision on the Citizens United case — that Government is unable to place restrictions on how Corporations spend money in general elections. If the importance of money in winning an election was already going up at an exponential rate, then opening the treasuries of one the wealthiest constituencies in the world — America’s corporations — will accelerate that. Capitalism will have the power to dictate the politics of America.

It’s when you put these trends together that you begin to understand why the U.S. may soon be faced with a choice unlike any other in its history: the primacy of democracy or capitalism. So far, the decision, whether explicit or not, has been that capitalism matters more. The symptoms of this decision have created a self-reinforcing loop that has continued to magnify the two trends above.

On one hand, an ever-increasing concentration of resources amongst a smaller proportion of the population has meant their voice has been magnified. They’ve been using it to pursue policies that have grown the economic pie, all the while sharing it less and less. On the other hand, those at the other end of the spectrum are struggling to a degree that is almost unheard of previously. Many are barely managing to put food on the table, let alone make donations to politician candidates. Yet those donations are the lifeblood of any modern political campaign. Without them, a candidate is simply a nonstarter.

THIS !!

jonathan-cunningham:

Dean Chris Edley volunteered that he’d been party to very high-level discussions during Obama’s transition about prosecuting the criminals. He said they decided against it. I asked why. Two reasons: 1) it was thought that the CIA, NSA, and military would revolt, and 2) it was thought the [Republicans] would retaliate by blocking every piece of legislation they tried to move (which, of course, they’ve done anyhow).

Afterwards I told him that CIA friends confirmed that Obama would have been in danger, but I added that he bent over backwards to protect the criminals, and gave as an example the DOJ’s defense (state secrets) of Jeppesen (the rendition arm of Boeing) a few days after his inauguration.

He shrugged and said they will never be prosecuted, and that sometimes politics trumps rule of law.

“It must not,” I said.

“It shouldn’t,” he said, and walked off.

This is the Dean of the Berkeley School of Law.

This was writtn by Susan Harman and the quote confirmed by Christopher Edley Jr, Dean of the Berkeley School of Law. The extent of the influence of the military industrial complex doesn’t at all surprise me, but the fact that the President had to take his physical safety into account when making a decision whether or not to prosecute people who had clearly committed crimes shocks me to my core.

this is crazy talk.  all of this implying that our own military (cia, nsa, whoever) would have sought assassination on the us president for pursuing justice of war crimes???  if the validity verified and this threat remotely true, then there’s a lot of work to be done dismantling the whole fucking thing and rebuilding from the ground up. to think that the president of the united states can be strong armed by our military is unfathomable, but not implausible, and should be considered the greatest security threat to our country conceivable—fuck looking for terrorists, we are the terrorists.