Obama Argues State Secrets to Protect Assassination Order


It was President Obama’s announcement that Anwar al-Awlaki was to be assasinated wherever he as found that move us to write and publish the Crimes are Crimes – No Matter Who Does Them statement last May.

In August, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the ACLU filed suit against the order, for Nasser al-Awlaki, the targeted man’s father, who lives in Colorado.  Late Friday, the administration answered with a brief arguing, according to the Washington Post, that the case had to be dismissed because of “state secrets.”

UHHH…where have we heard that before?

Sign NOW!

Crimes are Crimes – No Matter Who Does Them!

to be printed in the NY Times the week of October 3 to protest the 9th anniversary of the US war on Afghanistan.

Glenn Greenwald ripped into this today:

“Obama’s now asserting a power so radical — the right to kill American citizens and do so in total secrecy, beyond even the reach of the courts — that it’s ”too harsh even for” one of the most far-right War on Terror cheerleading-lawyers in the nation.  But that power is certainly not “too harsh” for the kind-hearted Constitutional scholar we elected as President, nor for his hordes of all-justifying supporters soon to place themselves to the right of David Rivkin as they explain why this is all perfectly justified.  One other thing, as always:  vote Democrat, because the Republicans are scary!”

The Washington Post noted,

“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. It prevailed in the last case last week, on a 6 to 5 vote by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.”

The Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU issued a statement saying

“The idea that courts should have no role whatsoever in determining the criteria by which the executive branch can kill its own citizens is unacceptable in a democracy.

“In matters of life and death, no executive should have a blank check.”

People can be killed on the orders of a president with no trial, no sentence, no due process — not even an indictment?  I don’t want to live in any country that allows such actions.

Another reason to protest visibly and publicly.  Help get the protest statement into the New York Times the week of October 4, which begins the 10th year of the US occupation of Afghanistan.

, , , , , ,

  1. #1 by DarenGMcDougal on November 9, 2011 - 5:36 am

    I voted for Obama. I argued for Obama. But Obama’s civil liberties has actually been far worse than bush’s. Noy only do I no longer support him; I’d like to see him impeached.

  2. #2 by Kathy on November 15, 2011 - 8:50 am

    I choose Obama because He deserve being a President and also His slogan ‘Yes, we can change’

    I don’t think he is so gullible and making bad things which is not good as a President. I do believe that He is on the right track as a President. ^_^

    “Crimes is Crimes no matter who does them” is just like what we recognized “NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW and NO MAN IS BELOW IT.”

(will not be published)