Thursday April 08 2010
The Obama administration has taken the unprecedented step of authorising the assassination of a US citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, linked to the plot to blow up a US airliner on Christmas Day.
The move to place Al-Awlaki (38) on a hit-list was taken after a review concluded this year that he had moved from inciting terrorist attacks to taking part in them.
The decision is extraordinary not only because Al-Awlaki is believed to be the first American whose killing has been approved by a US president, but also because the Obama administration chose to make the move public.
The 'Los Angeles Times' reported in January that Al-Awlaki's name had been placed on a top-secret list of targeted killings. In the past 24 hours, however, a handful of intelligence and counter-terrorism officials have briefed Reuters and the 'New York Times' on the decision.
But Karl, you have just made my point -- or am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteWe all agree, I think, that a pillar of democracy is that people are innocent until proven guilty by due process of law. We all agree, I think, that for the president to make an executive decision authorizing somebody's execution violates the spirit of democracy.
As I have said, I don't speak for the left, but I would be surprised if Chomsky (to pick one) would applaud what Obama is doing here.
Here is Stuart Bramhall's take on Obama.
ReplyDeleteA Virtual Political Unknown Breaks All His Campaign Promises
By now there is widespread disenchantment among progressives who busted their butt to get Obama elected only to see him break nearly all his campaign promises and continue the pro-war, pro-torture, pro-covert assassination and anti-civil liberties policies of George W. Bush. There has been all kinds of speculation why this might be – accusations that Obama has a naïve and misguided attachment to bipartisanship, that he’s too cowardly to stand up to his corporate donors, that he’s frightened of being assassinated, and that Bush senior is blackmailing him about being a secret CIA asset who was really born in Kenya. There is even conjecture that it’s really Biden who controls the White House, just as Cheney controlled the Bush White House.
The reality is the Obama presidency is fertile ground for speculation. One reason why we like to elect presidents with extensive government experience that they establish a clear record (through their voting record and public commentary) of both their political beliefs and their behavior under pressure. Obama, who tended to keep his head down during his seven years in the Illinois state legislature and four years in the Senate, has given us very little to go on.
The gaping holes in his resume have led to all kinds of right wing conspiracy theories about the authenticity of his birth certificate, his secret adherence to the Muslim religion, a possible stint with the CIA during the years nobody remembers seeing him at Columbia, and his allegiance to a secret international Marxist/socialist conspiracy.
It is frustrating, as the one thing you and i agree on, is that at least in theory, the left talks less militaristically, and more isolationist. However, in practice it is not the case. Therefore, one of the only major issues I support the left on, they dont follow through in practice. The issues I disagree with them on (both fiscal and social issues) they do follow-through on.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that Bush bailed out the banks and Harper the auto industry.
ReplyDeleteOn my scale, these guys are all far too big government of where I think is optimal. And as a point to remember, the Democrats were far more in support of the bank bailout, than Republicans.
ReplyDeleteOf course! But if that's significant, then it must also be significant that the Republicans are more in favour of the military option.
ReplyDeleteI would be interested in your take on the recent Washington Post revelations http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/. It seems to me that when you privatize intelligence and national security, you are shooting yourself in the foot! Presumably these important functions are being privatized because a private company can gather information and kill people more efficiently than government can. I would not dispute that [even though this may not be in the national interest]. But leaving that aside, I also see some huge efficiency contradictions in the privatizing of security functions. Since the private company is in it for profit, the motivation will always be to over play the security threat. The for-profit company assigned to monitor [drug traffic from Columbia], has a disincentive to say "there is no security threat here." Furthermore (although this is not part of the Washington Post story) there is a disincentive for Halibuton in Iraq to behave in a way that will end the war. Halibuton needs conflict and turmoil to continue its lucrative government contracts.
tried several times to leave a comment regarding Karl's interview with the woman who preferred SF because there were less Christians there. Hopefully it will print here.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to say that I think it was the perfect illustration to use for "world opinion". ERic's suggestion to engage her in conversation is fine but she probably didn't have any reason for her opinion other than to impress her interviewer. I suggest that given she was in an interview situation she stated what she thought any intelligent person with a high profile job would want to hear, i.e. I am too good to hang around with christians.
Lori