Obama asserts the right to assassinate American citizens who pose security risk

[Cain]

The hits just don't stop:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604239.html?hpid=topnews

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. . . . The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, "it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them," a senior administration official said. "They are then part of the enemy." Both the CIA and the JSOC maintain lists of individuals, called "High Value Targets" and "High Value Individuals," whom they seek to kill or capture.  The JSOC list includes three Americans, including [New Mexico-born Islamic cleric Anwar] Aulaqi, whose name was added late last year. As of several months ago, the CIA list included three U.S. citizens, and an intelligence official said that Aulaqi's name has now been added.

Constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald comments:

Just think about this for a minute.  Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests."  They're entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations.  Amazingly, the Bush administration's policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges -- based solely on the President's claim that they were Terrorists -- produced intense controversy for years.  That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution.  Shouldn't Obama's policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind -- not imprisoned, but killed -- produce at least as much controversy?

Obviously, if U.S. forces are fighting on an actual battlefield, then they (like everyone else) have the right to kill combatants actively fighting against them, including American citizens.  That's just the essence of war.  That's why it's permissible to kill a combatant engaged on a real battlefield in a war zone but not, say, torture them once they're captured and helplessly detained.  But combat is not what we're talking about here.  The people on this "hit list" are likely to be killed while at home, sleeping in their bed, driving in a car with friends or family, or engaged in a whole array of other activities.  More critically still, the Obama administration -- like the Bush administration before it -- defines the "battlefield" as the entire world.  So the President claims the power to order U.S. citizens killed anywhere in the world, while engaged even in the most benign activities carried out far away from any actual battlefield, based solely on his say-so and with no judicial oversight or other checks.  That's quite a power for an American President to claim for himself.

As we well know from the last eight years, the authoritarians among us in both parties will, by definition, reflexively justify this conduct by insisting that the assassination targets are Terrorists and therefore deserve death.  What they actually mean, however, is that the U.S. Government has accused them of being Terrorists, which (except in the mind of an authoritarian) is not the same thing as being a Terrorist.  Numerous Guantanamo detainees accused by the U.S. Government of being Terrorists have turned out to be completely innocent, and the vast majority of federal judges who provided habeas review to detainees have found an almost complete lack of evidence to justify the accusations against them, and thus ordered them released.  That includes scores of detainees held while the U.S. Government insisted that only the "Worst of the Worst" remained at the camp.

Enough said, I think.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Meet the Smiler, same as the Beast...only worse, in a way.

[LMNO]

Remind me why I vote, again?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Remind me why I vote, again?

"Change!"

[Aufenthatt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8482630.stm

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that special Treasury orders that freeze the assets of terror suspects are unlawful.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8482630.stm

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that special Treasury orders that freeze the assets of terror suspects are unlawful.

That's okay.  It's old news that the US has said they feel free to kidnap British subjects on British soil, so assets really aren't a concern.

[Aufenthatt]

he UK Supreme Court has ruled that special Treasury orders that freeze the assets of terror suspects are unlawful.

The judges at the UK's highest court said the government had exceeded its powers by controlling the finances of five suspects.

They also lifted a ban on identifying the men who brought the challenge.

The court said the government should have sought Parliament's approval for the asset freezing regime, rather than creating it automatically.

The five men at the centre of the case have only been usually allowed £10 a week in cash and need special permission for other expenses.

Q&A: Freezing terror assets  
The court has suspended its judgement for a month , which will give the government time to change the law so it can go ahead and lawfully freeze alleged terrorist assets. In the meantime, suspects will continue to have their assets frozen.

UN orders

In the ruling, the Supreme Court justices said that if the government wanted to take "far-reaching measures" to combat terrorism then it needed the approval of Parliament.

Lord Hope said: "Even in the face of the threat of international terrorism, the safety of the people is not the supreme law.

 This is a clear example of an attempt to adversely affect the basic rights of the citizen without the clear authority of Parliament

Lord Hope
"We must be just as careful to guard against unrestrained encroachments on personal liberty."

The two orders to freeze assets were brought in by Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The original Terrorism (UN Measures) Order 2006 and the 2006 al-Qaeda and Taliban (UN Measures) Order were made under section 1 of the 1946 UN Act in order to implement resolutions of the UN Security Council.

Both orders became part of British law without a Parliamentary debate, which the men said was unfair because the government had created offences without putting it to a vote.

The Treasury issued the men with licences for specific purposes, such as claiming benefits. The men were allowed about £10 a week in cash and had to provide officials with receipts for everything they spent.

The men had argued that the asset-freezing regime severely affected their ability to use property and cash from any source and, in turn, left their families open to criminal prosecution if they offered help.

In one situation, a minister had to be consulted on whether a suspect could use a car to get the family groceries from a supermarket because the vehicle was classed as a financial resource.

The men also argued that the British system went beyond what the UN had set out to do by targeting those accused of links to terrorism, rather than just those convicted at trial.

Supremacy of Parliament

Lord Hope said the Treasury had exceeded its powers in how it had devised and implemented the Terrorism Order.

"This is a clear example of an attempt to adversely affect the basic rights of the citizen without the clear authority of Parliament," he said.

Turning to the second type of restriction, the al-Qaeda Order, Lord Hope said that one of the five men, Mohammed al-Ghabra, had been denied a basic right to challenge his restrictions.

Explaining the judgement, Lord Phillips, president of the Supreme Court, said: "Nobody should conclude that the result of these appeals constitutes judicial interference with the will of Parliament.

"On the contrary, it upholds the supremacy of Parliament in deciding whether or not measures should be imposed that affect the fundamental rights of those in this country."

A spokesman for the Treasury said it would abide by the ruling and legislate as quickly as possible.

"It's important to be clear that this ruling does not challenge the UK's obligations under the UN Charter to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists, which we will continue to meet.

"We will introduce fast-track legislation to ensure there is no disruption to our terrorist asset-freezing powers."

[Aufenthatt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8482630.stm

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that special Treasury orders that freeze the assets of terror suspects are unlawful.

That's okay.  It's old news that the US has said they feel free to kidnap British subjects on British soil, so assets really aren't a concern.

We shoot brazilians on sight.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8482630.stm

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that special Treasury orders that freeze the assets of terror suspects are unlawful.

That's okay.  It's old news that the US has said they feel free to kidnap British subjects on British soil, so assets really aren't a concern.

We shoot brazilians on sight.

You can't be too careful.

[Aufenthatt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8482630.stm

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that special Treasury orders that freeze the assets of terror suspects are unlawful.

That's okay.  It's old news that the US has said they feel free to kidnap British subjects on British soil, so assets really aren't a concern.

We shoot brazilians on sight.

You can't be too careful.

I know, I mean can you imagine a world where you respected rights and liberties, whilst at the same time noted the effects of offending your allies.

Seriously, people are starting to favour the EU over the US...  IN BRITAIN!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8482630.stm

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that special Treasury orders that freeze the assets of terror suspects are unlawful.

That's okay.  It's old news that the US has said they feel free to kidnap British subjects on British soil, so assets really aren't a concern.

We shoot brazilians on sight.

You can't be too careful.

I know, I mean can you imagine a world where you respected rights and liberties, whilst at the same time noted the effects of offending your allies.

Seriously, people are starting to favour the EU over the US...  IN BRITAIN!

So we kidnap the terrorist bastards.

Easy.

[Aufenthatt]

You intend to kidnap the whole EU?

Is that illinois prison ready yet?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You intend to kidnap the whole EU?

Is that illinois prison ready yet?

No, the Britains who don't like us.  They are suspiciously un-American, and are thus traitors.

And they have all the wrong values.

We'll keep them in Wyoming.  All we need is a big fence.

[Aufenthatt]

All 60 million?

Big fence.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

All 60 million?

Big fence.

It's the only thing we make anymore.

And Wyoming has plenty of room.