Obama myrder egne statsborgere, kvit og frit
Du er Journalist gør her opmærksom på en artikel fra 6. marts 2012, om den amerikanske justitsminister Eric Holders tale fra dagen før, en tale som forsvarer Obama og USAs mord på egne, uskyldige statsborgere. Uskyldig, for det er man vel i et demokratisk samfund med grundlovssikrede, basale menneskerettigheder indtil det modsatte er bevist?
Politiken og “journalist” Jakob Nielsen viderebringer samme dag uden videre amerikansk propaganda, muligvis for at bløde danske læsere op til accept af USAs likvidering af egne statsborgere – uden skyggen af anklage, bevis eller rettergang: “Al-Awlaki menes at have været en af Al Qaedas ideologiske førerskikkelser, der blandt andet stod bag internetmagasinet Inspire, der opfordrede til terror mod bl.a. Jyllands-Posten.” Dette er det rene mikrofonholderi og propaganda, for hvor er de kritiske spørgsmål?
Var Awlaki virkelig en farlig leder? Og var han overhovedet en “førerskikkelse“? Har vi intet som helst lært af historien? Læs også Greenwalds artikel “The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality” og “The Al-Awlaki Slippery Slope: U.S. Drone Now Killed Innocent 16-Year-Old American Son” af Jesselyn Radack. Kan vi blive enige om, at Al-Awlakis søn ikke er anklaget eller mistænkt for noget som helst? USA giver endda ikke disse mennesker og de mange uskyldige som befinder sig i nærheden af disse bombenedslag fra flyvende robotter – fjernstyret fra amerikansk jord – en chance til at overgive sig, at melde sig selv som alternativ til deres egen og andres død.
Attorney General Holder defends execution without charges
In a speech at Northwestern University yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder provided the most detailed explanation yet for why the Obama administration believes it has the authority to secretly target U.S. citizens for execution by the CIA without even charging them with a crime, notifying them of the accusations, or affording them an opportunity to respond, instead condemning them to death without a shred of transparency or judicial oversight. The administration continues to conceal the legal memorandum it obtained to justify these killings, and, as The New York Times‘ Charlie Savage noted, Holder’s “speech contained no footnotes or specific legal citations, and it fell far short of the level of detail contained in the Office of Legal Counsel memo.” But the crux of Holder’s argument as set forth in yesterday’s speech is this:
Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.
When Obama officials (like Bush officials before them) refer to someone “who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces,” what they mean is this: someone the President has accused and then decreed in secret to be a Terrorist without ever proving it with evidence. The “process” used by the Obama administration to target Americans for execution-by-CIA is, as reported last October by Reuters, as follows:
American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions . . . There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council . . . Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
As Leon Panetta recently confirmed, the President makes the ultimate decision as to whether the American will be killed: “[The] President of the United States obviously reviews these cases, reviews the legal justification, and in the end says, go or no go.”
So that is the “process” which Eric Holder yesterday argued constitutes “due process” as required by the Fifth Amendment before the government can deprive of someone of their life: the President and his underlings are your accuser, your judge, your jury and your executioner all wrapped up in one, acting in total secrecy and without your even knowing that he’s accused you and sentenced you to death, and you have no opportunity even to know about, let alone confront and address, his accusations; is that not enough due process for you? At Esquire, Charles Pierce, writing about Holder’s speech, described this best: “a monumental pile of crap that should embarrass every Democrat who ever said an unkind word about John Yoo.”