‘Only the Executive Branch Decides Who’s an Enemy’
You could be next.
December 1, 2011 - 8:49 am
At a national security conference yesterday, Obama administration lawyers were asked about killing Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen involved with al-Qaeda. Government lawyers responded that:
- “U.S. citizens don’t have immunity when they’re at war with the United States” and
- “only the executive branch, not the courts, are equipped to make decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.”
But don’t worry! As long as there’s beer in the fridge and reality TV on a working cable access, things are great in America.
I served as an Army Criminal Investigator for about 21 years and as a senior staff officer with the US Marshals Service for another 16. I had a masters degree in criminal justice and I’m 82 years old – not bragging, just setting the stage for the following: In my lifetime I have seen serious abuses of the US Constitution ad a number of violations of the right of US citizens but the language in the current legislation (Senate Bill 1867 Defense Authorization Act) is the most threatening governmental action I have ever seen – written in secret by two really strange senators, passed secretly in committee, and voted on so quickly there has not been time enough to organize dissent, this act (which has now passed both Houses), strips US citizens and anyone else falling under the jurisdiction of the United States protections previously afforded by the XIV Amendment to the Constitution, the Posse Comitatus Act, the historic Anglo-American presumption of innocence, and at least four Articles of the Bill of Rights. The silence of the press and TV news media has been deafening and the response from individual members of Congress has been evasive. This administration mut reform or be reformed . . .
Not to rain on a parade or suchlike, but SB 1867 has only been voted for cloture in the Senate on 11/20/2011. Here’s the Bill Summary & Status link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:41:./temp/~bdFgW8::|/home/LegislativeData.php|
Here’s the Bill Summary & Status link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:41:./temp/~bdFgW8:@@@X|/home/LegislativeData.php|
Cloture means: “The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster.”
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm
So the bill hasn’t passed the house yet.
But you’re correct about it. Even the NY Times wants Obama to veto it.
http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/president-obama-veto-the-defense-authorization-act/
Mr. Nemerov — were these remarks made at the “Review of the Field of National Security Law” conference? The one at the NW Ritz on 22nd? I would like to quote these comments in a piece, and prefer to verify the event. I don’t see a way to contact you directly. Thank you.
A few days ago I sarcastically asked when will Directive 10-289 be enacted. I guess the answer is that it already has been.
Only the executive branch can decide who is an enemy of the US? On what will they base this decision? How long before political orientation becomes a qualifier?
I hate to sound like I’m an Obama supporter, since I am not, but it is my understanding that he will veto this bill.
I certainly hope so. While I am by no means a Constitutional scholar, and while I don’t think that the rights vouchsafed to US citizens under the Constitution apply to foreigners, they certainly apply to US citizens, and I cannot see how this bill could possibly pass Constitutional muster.
I hope it dies a qucik death.
Fantastic. So that means the libs can stop whining about Iraq then, right.
Most of the take is myth (AKA: Utter BS/Urban Legend)
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/10/common-sense-principles-for-detainee-policy
Time was, the maxim of political wisdom was “Before you confer a new power on government, imagine it in the hands of your worst political enemy — because someday, it will be.”
I get the feeling the majority of Americans aren’t familiar with that maxim today. A pity: it certainly applies to this situation.