Thought I'd post this because I think that Paul Roberts is becoming a very powerful and insightful writer. We are devolving into fascism. We are Devo! When Call of Duty: Black Ops makes $360 million on it's first day on the market... we don't have far to go, especially if only a handful of people are aware of the legal fight going on. Anyway... Secretary Roberts says it much better than I.
America’s Devolution Into Dictatorship
By Paul Craig Roberts
November 11, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- -- The United States Department of Justice (sic) routinely charges and convicts innocents with bogus and concocted crimes that are not even on the statutes book. The distinguished defense attorney and civil libertarian, Harvey A. Silverglate, published a book last year, “Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent,” which conclusively proves that today in “freedom and democracy” America we have punishment without crime.
This same Justice (sic) Department, which routinely frames and railroads the innocent, argued in Federal Court on November 8 that the US government, if approved by the president, could murder anyone it wishes, citizens or noncitizens, at will. All that is required is that the government declare, without evidence, charges, trial, jury conviction or any of the due process required by the US Constitution, that the government suspects the murdered person or persons to be a “threat.”
The US Justice (sic) Department even told US Federal District Court Judge John Bates that the US judiciary, formerly a co-equal branch of government, has absolutely no legal authority whatsoever to stick its nose into President “Change” Obama’s decision to assassinate Americans. The unaccountability of the president’s decision to murder people is, the US Justice (sic) Department declared, one of “the very core powers of the president as commander in chief.”
The argument by the Justice (sic) Department that the executive branch has unreviewable authority to kill Americans, whom the executive branch has unilaterally, without presenting evidence, determined to pose a threat, was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center For Constitutional Rights.
The outcome of the case will determine whether the neoconservative and Israeli stooge, president George W. Bush, was correct when he said that the US Constitution was nothing but a “scrap of paper.”
It is my opinion that the American people and the US Constitution haven’t much chance of winning this case. The Republican Federalist Society has succeeded in appointing many federal district, appeals and supreme court judges, who believe that the powers of the executive branch are superior to the powers of the legislature and judiciary. The Founding Fathers of our country declared unequivocally that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches were co-equal, However, the Republican brownshirts who comprise the Federalist Society have implanted the society’s demonic ideology in the federal bench and Justice (sic) Department. Today the erroneous belief is widespread that the executive branch is supreme and that the other branches of government are less than equal.
If Americans have a greater enemy than neoconservatives, that enemy is the Federalist Society, a collection of incipient Nazis.
Disagree with me as you will, but now let’s look at this development from another perspective. I am old enough to remember the Nixon years, and I was a presidential appointee, confirmed by the US senate, in the Reagan administration. For those of you too young to know and those who are to old to remember, President Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment simply because Nixon lied about when he learned about the burglary of the Watergate office of the Democratic party.
Nixon lied about when he learned of the burglary, because he knew that the Washington Post would make an issue of the burglary, if he launched an investigation, to defeat his re-election. The military/security complex and the black ops groups in the US government were angry at Nixon for smoothing US-China relations. The Washington Post, long regarded as a CIA asset, hid behind its “liberal” image to bring Nixon down. Woodward and Bernstein wrote thriller-type reports of midnight meetings with “deep throat” in dangerous parking garages to get the scoop on the date of Nixon’s knowledge of the meaningless burglary.
Let’s assume that I have it all wrong. The fact remains that Nixon was driven from office because of the Watergate burglary. No one was harmed. Nixon did not kill anyone or claim the right to kill, without proof or accountability, American citizens. If the dastardly President Nixon had a Justice (sic) Department like the present one, he simply would have declared Woodward, Bernstein, and the Washington Post to be a threat and murdered them by merely exercising the power that the Obama administration is claiming.
Nixon might be too far in the past for most Americans, so let’s look at Ronald Reagan. The neoconservatives’ Iran/Contra scandal almost brought down President Reagan. It is unclear whether President Reagan knew about the neocon operation and, if he did, whether he was keep in the loop. But all of this aside, what do you think would have been President Reagan’s fate if he, or his Justice (sic) Department, had declared that Reagan had the power as commander in chief to murder anyone he considered to be a threat?
Instantly, the media would have been in an uproar, law schools and university faculties would have been in an uproar, the Democrats would have been demanding Reagan’s impeachment, and his impeachment would have occurred with the speed of light.
Today in Amerika, approximately 25 years later, the ACLU has to go to federal court in order to attempt to affirm that “if the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state.”
In reply, the Justice (sic) Department told the court that murdering American citizens is a “political question” that is not subject to judicial review. The “freedom and democracy” government then invoked the “state secrets privilege” and declared that the case against the government’s power to commit murder must be dismissed in order to avoid “the disclosure of sensitive information”
If the Obama Regime wins this case, the US will have become a dictatorship.
As far as I can tell, the “liberal media” and most Americans do not care. Indeed, conservative Republicans are cheering it on.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions
Whoa! I'm not sure how that happened. Barracuda, Peregrine, or Jeff, please delete those duplicate posts. Sorry it happened, and I'll go do penance now.
If every man helped his neighbor, no man would be without help.
Many of us certainly saw all of this coming. We saw that this was the whole point of "Obama" in the first place. You don't overthrow the WORST president in history by giving the "liberals" the BEST president in history -- the FIRST BLACK PREZ in a time of war and upheaval for all of Earth's inhabitants. The tell was that HE WAS (IS) BLACK! I've dealt with racists my entire fucking life, but from the punk scene, not from having to actually experience it. I can tell you this shit does not just go away and never ever will, UNLESS, government and civil discourse has devolved in such a way that it can be turned into tabloid trash. So they load it up. It's like a motherfucking Wendy's baked potato and their old baked potato bar they used to have. Throw as much on as you want. The more the better, but better not have more sour cream than potato. But the OPTION is there if you wanted to take it.
I still would like to know why so many friends and idiots went the way of "punk" racism back in the day. Most, from what I know of mostly changed their ways due to having friends and such (like me), but especially in Colorado, these fucking racist fucks got in there to a number of teens minds. I would really love to explore the forensics of back then. We're dealing with meta-racism here. See that facebook post I put up the other day. Some 2.0 people are now giving birth to the 3.0. It feels like yesterday that 9/11 happened. Thus, I am 1.0.
2.0 got used to it. Kids who were 10 then are now 20. 10 years from now? All bets are off. We will be the most vulgar society ever concocted with the added motherfucking benefit that profanity will be fucking outlawed.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
You dealt with racism in the punk scene? Jesus how was yours so different from mine?
I agree with 82_28 in that we're going to be seeing some Idiocracy shit pretty soon. The biggest joke in that movie is that the president is a former porn star and world wrestling champion; look at how close some of the people that gained seats or narrowly lost seats were to that - well-known for highly exploitative reasons. Groups like ours here and Adbusters and DU and Alternet and small student dissident groups and little cults of celebrity surrounding personalities like David Harvey and James Lovelock and Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges and Sara Robinson and George Monbiot just need to keep plugging away. It will always be worthwhile to be thoughtful, reflective, and active, no matter what else is going on in the world around us. We're practically living this way already anyway.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
Al-Aulaqi v. Obama: Lawsuit Challenging Targeted Killings
November 8, 2010
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) have filed a lawsuit challenging the government's asserted authority to carry out “targeted killings” of U.S. citizens located far from any armed conflict zone.
The groups charge that the authority contemplated by the Obama administration is far broader than what the Constitution and international law allow. Outside of armed conflict, both the Constitution and international law prohibit targeted killing except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury. An extrajudicial killing policy under which names are added to CIA and military “kill lists” through a secret executive process and stay there for months at a time is plainly not limited to imminent threats.
The groups charge that targeting individuals for execution who are suspected of terrorism but have not been convicted or even charged — without oversight, judicial process, or disclosed standards for placement on kill lists — also poses the risk that the government will erroneously target the wrong people. In recent years, the U.S. government has detained many men as terrorists, only for courts or the government itself to discover later that the evidence was wrong or unreliable.
According to the legal complaint, the government has not disclosed the standards it uses for authorizing the premeditated and deliberate killing of U.S. citizens located far from any battlefield. The groups argue that the American people are entitled to know the standards being used for these life and death decisions.
1. This case concerns The executive's asserted authority to carry out "targeted killings" of US citizens suspected of terrorism far from any field of conflict. According to numerous published reports, the government maintains lists of suspects --"kill lists"-- against whom lethal force can be used without charge, trial or conviction. Individuals, including U.S. citizens, are added to the lists based on executive determinations that secret criteria have been satisfied. Executive officials are thus invested with sweeping authority to impose extrajudicial death sentences in violation of the Constitution and international law.
2. The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. Outside the context of armed conflict, the intentional use of lethal force without prior judicial process is an abridgement of this right except in the narrowest and most extraordinary circumstances.
3. The United States is not at war with Yemen, or within it. Nonetheless, U.S. government officials have disclosed the government’s intention to carry out the targeted killing of U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi, who is in hiding there. In early 2010, several newspapers reported that U.S. government officials had confirmed Anwar Al- Aulaqi’s placement on government kill lists; these lists amount to standing authorizations to use lethal force. Numerous subsequent reports have corroborated those accounts. According to one media report, there have already been as many as a dozen unsuccessful attempts on Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s life. Anwar Al-Aulaqi has been in hiding since at least January 2010. Plaintiff Nasser Al-Aulaqi is Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s father; he brings this action on his own behalf and as next friend to his son.
4. Outside of armed conflict, both the Constitution and international law prohibit targeted killing except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury. The summary use of force is lawful in these narrow circumstances only because the imminence of the threat makes judicial process infeasible. A targeted killing policy under which individuals are added to kill lists after a bureaucratic process and remain on these lists for months at a time plainly goes beyond the use of lethal force as a last resort to address imminent threats, and accordingly goes beyond what the Constitution and international law permit.
5. The government’s refusal to disclose the standard by which it determines to target U.S. citizens for death independently violates the Constitution: U.S. citizens have a right to know what conduct may subject them to execution at the hands of their own government. Due process requires, at a minimum, that citizens be put on notice of what may cause them to be put to death by the state.
6. Plaintiff seeks a declaration from this Court that the Constitution and international law prohibit the government from carrying out targeted killings outside of armed conflict except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury; and an injunction prohibiting the targeted killing of U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi outside this narrow context. Plaintiff also seeks an injunction requiring the government to disclose the standards under which it determines whether U.S. citizens can be targeted for death.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) over causes of action arising under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (Alien Tort Statute) over a cause of action arising under customary international law and treaty law. Jurisdiction is also proper pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702 et seq. (Administrative Procedure Act) and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. (Declaratory Judgment Act).
8. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
PARTIES
9. Plaintiff Nasser Al-Aulaqi is the father of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen whose targeted killing Defendants have authorized. Nasser Al-Aulaqi is a citizen and resident of Yemen. He acts on his own behalf and as next friend to his son. He acts in the latter capacity because his son is in hiding under threat of death and cannot access counsel or the courts to assert his constitutional rights without disclosing his whereabouts and exposing himself to possible attack by Defendants. He brings the Alien Tort Statute claim on his own behalf to prevent the injury he would suffer if Defendants were to kill his son.
10. Defendant Barack H. Obama is President of the United States. As President, he is Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces and serves as Chair of the National Security Council, which authorizes the targeted killing of suspected terrorists who are U.S. citizens. President Obama is sued in his official capacity.
11. Defendant Leon C. Panetta is the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”). As CIA Director, he has ultimate authority over the CIA’s operations worldwide. Upon information and belief, Defendant Panetta approves the addition of individuals to the kill list maintained by the CIA, and signs off on individual targeted killing operations conducted by the CIA outside of armed conflict, including those against U.S. citizens. Director Panetta is sued in his official capacity.
12. Defendant Robert M. Gates is the Secretary of Defense. As Defense Secretary, he has ultimate authority over the U.S. armed forces worldwide, including the Joint Special Operations Command (“JSOC”). Upon information and belief, JSOC is involved in carrying out targeted killings, including of U.S. citizens outside of armed conflict. In his capacity as Secretary of Defense, Defendant Gates is also a statutory member of the National Security Council, which authorizes the targeted killing of U.S. citizens. Secretary Gates is sued in his official capacity.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Targeted Killings by the United States Outside of Armed Conflict
13. Since 2001, the United States has carried out targeted killings in connection with the “war on terror.” While many of these killings have been conducted by the U.S. military in the context of the armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States has also carried out targeted killings outside the context of armed conflict, and it is these killings that are at issue here. Upon information and belief, both the CIA and JSOC are involved in authorizing, planning, and carrying out targeted killings, including of U.S. citizens, outside the context of armed conflict.
14. The first reported post-2001 targeted killing by the U.S. government outside Afghanistan occurred in Yemen in November 2002, when a CIA-operated Predator drone fired a missile at a suspected terrorist traveling in a car with other passengers. The strike killed all passengers in the vehicle, including a U.S. citizen. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings later stated that the strike constituted “a clear case of extrajudicial killing” and set an “alarming precedent.” Since 2001, there has been an increase in targeted killings by the United States against terrorism suspects outside of Afghanistan and Iraq.
15. The government has publicly claimed the authority to carry out targeted killings of civilians, including U.S. citizens, outside the context of armed conflict. For example, in February 2010, then-Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, in response to a question by a member of Congress about the targeted killing of U.S. citizens, stated that the United States takes “direct action” against suspected terrorists and that “if we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.” In June 2010, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan responded to questions about the targeted killing program by stating, “If an American person or citizen is in Yemen or in Pakistan or in Somalia or another place, and they are trying to carry out attacks against U.S. interests, they will also face the full brunt of a U.S. response.”
16. Although the government has publicly claimed the authority to carry out targeted killings of civilians outside the context of armed conflict, it has not explained on what basis individuals are added to kill lists, or the circumstances in which the asserted authority to carry out targeted killings will actually be exercised. Specific Authorization to Kill Plaintiff’s Son Anwar Al-Aulaqi
17. Plaintiff Nasser Al-Aulaqi moved to the United States in 1966 to pursue his studies as a Fulbright scholar at New Mexico State University. Plaintiff’s son, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, was born in New Mexico in 1971. Plaintiff remained in the United States with his family for the next seven years, until 1978, when they moved back to Yemen. Plaintiff went on to serve as Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in the Government of Yemen, and later founded and served as president of Ibb University and served as president of Sana’a University. Plaintiff currently resides in Yemen with his wife, who is an American citizen, and their family.
18. In 1991, Plaintiff’s son Anwar Al-Aulaqi returned to the United States to attend college at Colorado State University. Anwar Al-Aulaqi went on to obtain his master’s degree at San Diego State University and later enrolled in a Ph.D. program at George Washington University, which he attended through December 2001. He married and had three children while living in the United States. He moved to the United Kingdom in 2003, and to Yemen in 2004.
19. In January 2010, the Washington Post reported that Anwar Al-Aulaqi had been added to “a shortlist of U.S. citizens” that JSOC was specifically authorized to kill. The same article reported that Anwar Al-Aulaqi had survived a JSOC-assisted strike in Yemen in late December 2009. That strike reportedly killed 41 civilians, mostly children and women. Another January 2010 news report stated that Anwar Al-Aulaqi was “all but certain” to be added to a list of suspects that the CIA was specifically authorized to kill. In April 2010, the Washington Post and other media sources reported that Anwar Al- Aulaqi had been added to the CIA’s list.
20. Numerous news reports have corroborated that Defendants have authorized the targeted killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi and are actively pursuing him. According to one media report, he has already been the target of as many as a dozen unsuccessful strikes. One U.S. official stated that “he’s in everybody’s sights.” In the context of a discussion about targeted killing, Defendant Panetta stated that Anwar Al- Aulaqi is “someone that we’re looking for” and that “there isn’t any question that he’s one of the individuals that we’re focusing on.”
21. Defendants added Anwar Al-Aulaqi to the CIA and JSOC kill lists after a closed executive process. In the course of that process, Defendants and other executive officials determined that Anwar Al-Aulaqi satisfied secret criteria that determine whether a U.S. citizen can be killed by his own government. Upon information and belief, Anwar Al-Aulaqi is now subject to a standing order that permits the CIA and JSOC to kill him. Upon information and belief, the authorization for Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s killing by the CIA and JSOC involved the approval or recommendation of all Defendants.
22. Upon information and belief, individuals placed on the CIA and JSOC targeted killing lists remain on those lists for months at a time. An intelligence official who was questioned about the CIA’s kill list stated that individuals would be removed from the kill list if their names “hadn’t popped on the screen for over a year, or there was no intelligence linking [them] to known terrorists or plans.”
23. Upon information and belief, Defendants have authorized the CIA and JSOC to kill Anwar Al-Aulaqi without regard to whether, at the time lethal force will be used, he presents a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life, or whether there are reasonable means short of lethal force that could be used to address any such threat.
24. Executive officials have condemned Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s public statements and sermons; they have also alleged that he has “cast his lot” with terrorist groups and taken on an “operational” role in a terrorist organization. The U.S. government has not, however, publicly indicted Anwar Al-Aulaqi for any terrorism-related crime.
25. In response to reports that the United States has placed Anwar Al-Aulaqi on kill lists, Yemeni officials, including the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Director of the National Security Agency, have publicly stated that their government’s security forces are taking measures to arrest Anwar Al-Aulaqi for possible charge and trial. Yemeni cabinet members have also publicly requested that the United States provide the Yemeni government with any evidence against Anwar Al-Aulaqi to support arresting him and bringing him to trial. The Yemeni government has prosecuted other residents of Yemen for terrorism-related crimes, and the Yemeni government is currently prosecuting at least one U.S. citizen who is alleged to be a member of a terrorist organization. Anwar Al-Aulaqi has in the past been detained by the Yemeni government and was imprisoned for 18 months in 2006 and 2007.
26. Anwar Al-Aulaqi has been in hiding in Yemen since at least January 2010. Plaintiff has had no communication with his son during that time. Anwar Al-Aulaqi cannot communicate with his father or counsel without endangering his own life.
CAUSES OF ACTION First Claim for Relief Fourth Amendment: Right to be Free from Unreasonable Seizure
27. Defendants’ policy of targeted killings violates the Fourth Amendment by authorizing, outside of armed conflict, the seizure, in the form of targeted killing, of U.S. citizens, including Plaintiff’s son, in circumstances in which they do not present concrete, specific, and imminent threats to life or physical safety, and where there are means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralize any such threat. Plaintiff brings this claim as next friend for his son.
Second Claim for Relief Fifth Amendment: Right Not to be Deprived of Life Without Due Process
28. Defendants’ policy of targeted killings violates the Fifth Amendment by authorizing, outside of armed conflict, the killing of U.S. citizens, including Plaintiff’s son, without due process of law in circumstances in which they do not present concrete, specific, and imminent threats to life or physical safety, and where there are means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralize any such threat. Plaintiff brings this claim as next friend for his son.
Third Claim for Relief Alien Tort Statute: Extrajudicial Killing
29. Defendants’ policy of targeted killings violates treaty and customary international law by authorizing, outside of armed conflict, the killing of individuals, including Plaintiff’s son, without judicial process in circumstances in which they do not present concrete, specific, and imminent threats to life or physical safety, and where there are means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralize any such threat. Plaintiff brings this claim in his own right to prevent the injury he would suffer if Defendants were to kill his son.
Fourth Claim for Relief Fifth Amendment: Due Process Notice Requirements
30. Defendants’ policy of targeted killings outside of armed conflict violates the Fifth Amendment by authorizing the killing of U.S. citizens, including Plaintiff’s son, on the basis of criteria that are secret. Plaintiff brings this claim as next friend for his son.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Nasser Al-Aulaqi requests that the Court: a. Declare that, outside of armed conflict, the Constitution prohibits Defendants from carrying out the targeted killing of U.S. citizens, including Plaintiff’s son, except in circumstances in which they present concrete, specific, and imminent threats to life or physical safety, and there are no means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralize the threats. b. Declare that, outside of armed conflict, treaty and customary international law prohibit Defendants from carrying out the targeted killing of individuals, including Plaintiff’s son, except in circumstances in which they present concrete, specific, and imminent threats to life or physical safety, and there are no means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralize the threats. c. Enjoin Defendants from intentionally killing U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi unless he presents a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life or physical safety, and there are no means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralize the threat. d. Order Defendants to disclose the criteria that are used in determining whether the government will carry out the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen. e. Grant any other and further relief as is appropriate and necessary. Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Arthur B. Spitzer Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar No. 235960) American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation’s Capital 1400 20th Street, N.W., Suite 119 Washington, DC 20036 Tel. 202-457-0800 Fax 202-452.1868 artspitzer@aol.com Jameel Jaffer (to be admitted pro hac vice) Ben Wizner (to be admitted pro hac vice) Jonathan M. Manes American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 519-7814 jjaffer@aclu.org Pardiss Kebriaei (to be admitted pro hac vice) Maria C. LaHood (to be admitted pro hac vice) William Quigley Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway, 7th floor New York, NY 10012 (212) 614-6452 pkebriaei@ccrjustice.org August 30, 2010
So Mr. "Hope & Change" himself, Barack Obama, claims the right to assassinate any American anywhere in the world that he alone considers a threat.
Now how is this not fascism again? And how is it that the United States is still supposed to be a credible democracy?
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
Simulist wrote:So Mr. "Hope & Change" himself, Barack Obama, claims the right to assassinate any American anywhere in the world that he alone considers a threat.
Now how is this not fascism again? And how is it that the United States is still supposed to be a credible democracy?
No dude. We're an INcredible democracy! C'mon man, keep up.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
You're right. "Incredible" is a good word for this.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
Simulist wrote:So Mr. "Hope & Change" himself, Barack Obama, claims the right to assassinate any American anywhere in the world that he alone considers a threat.
Now how is this not fascism again? And how is it that the United States is still supposed to be a credible democracy?
It's not fascism because they're terrorists and they hate America.
And how is it that the United States is still supposed to be a credible democracy?
Well, it's worth noting that the administration is being dragged into court in order to try to get them to comply with the rule of law. I have a hard time picturing that happening in Nazi Germany for instance. Maybe such things did occur in Nazi Germany for a time. I don't know. Maybe I'm naive but I like to believe that the courts still function and the constitution is still in force and the administration can be compelled to cease attempting to murder an American citizen without some semblance of due process. Sounds sort of pathetic when you think about it though.
From the complaint:
5. The government’s refusal to disclose the standard by which it determines to target U.S. citizens for death independently violates the Constitution: U.S. citizens have a right to know what conduct may subject them to execution at the hands of their own government. Due process requires, at a minimum, that citizens be put on notice of what may cause them to be put to death by the state.
It's almost like the ACLU is attempting to embarrass the administration into complying with the rule of law. Like, "look, please don't murder us without telling us why you believe you have the right to murder us. Just tell us what we must or must not do to avoid being murdered. Please."
Alauqi is American citizen terrorist enemy number one. His wiki entry is a jumbled mess. It seems he's another of these elusive terrorists with 9 lives. Able to somehow dodge scud missiles, Yemeni dragnets, CIA assassins and bounty hunters scouring Yemen looking for him, dead or alive. He seems to have slipped through the fingers of justice on a couple of occasions on technicalities. Seems like he's one of those useful terrorists.
The administration is never going to disclose their reasoning for placing Alauqi on the "kill list". They've got the state's secrets trump card. Maybe he can be stripped of his citizenship and then Yemen can be turned into a war zone... et voila, enemy combatant. Case dismissed.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
