How much longer will the U.S. survive as a constitutional democratic republic?

A full-length version of an op-ed I wrote following the U.S. presidential election:

Obama should be impeached for killing U.S. citizens in drone strikes

Nov. 20th, 2012

I’ve lately observed how much of the Philippine media coverage of President Barack Obama’s brief tour throughout Southeast Asia has been presented rather favorably and uncritically. Similarly, since his election victory a few weeks ago, I have read commentaries of praise on how the United States is still a successful and progressive democracy run by public officials who respect and submit to the rule of law and therefore free of the systemic corruption that the Philippines is, unfortunately, infamous for.1 But this view, although based on some truth, is nonetheless a largely delusory one.

Barack Obama accepts his ill-deserved Nobel Peace Prize

Barack Obama–a man who may indeed conform to the textbook definition of a war criminal*–accepts his ill-deserved Nobel Peace Prize

I’m an American expat living in Manila, and I could not find a lesser evil to choose in the recent election.  I could see little reason to be convinced that a Mitt Romney Administration would prove to be any less of a disaster than the previous Republican presidency of Bush-Cheney.  On the other hand, although I consider my political outlook to be like that of a Rooseveltian Democrat, I see little to none of that FDR tradition in the Obama Presidency. On the contrary, it has thoroughly proven itself to be hostile to the nobler traditions that the United States historically represents, particularly when one looks at the President’s record on military and foreign policy. If one studies some of such matters critically, one will likely find little reason to laud Barack Obama as a man of peace and social justice.

There are now many clarion calls by legal experts, current and former government officials, and political activists arguing for Obama’s impeachment over issues such as his failure to seek congressional approval for the NATO-led war in Libya,2 and his administration’s lying as to what actually happened in the 9/11/12 attack on the Benghazi consulate.3 Keeping these related issues in mind, I, however, wish to call the reader’s attention to one particular issue for which Obama is indeed impeachable for: his role in ordering the unmanned drone strikes that killed at least three U.S. citizens—one of which was a 16-year-old boy. Although I am admittedly no legal expert, this is nonetheless one issue which I do feel informed enough on to be able to give a qualified opinion about.  It is unfortunate that such a very grave issue went underreported by the mainstream news media; nor did I hear it mentioned once in any of the debates before the election. As a people still greatly affected by U.S. foreign policy, Filipino readers deserve to be more informed about this darker side of the Obama Presidency.

Since many Filipinos may be unfamiliar with the American political identity, let me explain that patriotic Americans consider our 1789 Constitution—the oldest living constitution in history—to be a work of great political genius, and therefore quite sacrosanct. Among its brilliant features is its design to specifically protect the republic against the abuse of executive power: i.e., tyranny.

The Obama Administration's decision to kill U.S. citizens without due process of law is an act that exceeds the tyrannical extremism of the Bush-Cheney Administration.

The Obama Administration’s decision to kill U.S. citizens without due process is an act that exceeds the extremist tyranny of the Bush-Cheney Administration.

These safeguards were challenged during the Bush-Cheney Administration of 2001-09, when deep concerns were raised, and strong criticisms made about the Executive’s abuse of its constitutional authority: American citizens were imprisoned without charges at Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants in the “War on Terror” (among other violations such as the torturing of POWs, etc.). But yet the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights states that “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” In other words, every citizen is guaranteed a right to be tried and convicted before having money or property taken, being sentenced to prison, or being executed. This is why the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Bush Administration could not legally detain U.S. citizens designated as “enemy combatants” without charges. In 2008, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama said that he also agreed that it was illegal for the Executive to commit such acts.4 Other critics of the administration—many of them Democrats like Obama—referred to this as a push toward a “unitary executive”—a term that is little more than a legalistic euphemism for dictatorship. I myself was involved in a campaign for the impeachment of Vice President Cheney over these and other issues.

But what many of those same Democrats, et al. that attacked Bush and Cheney for these violations seem reluctant to acknowledge today is that Obama himself has exceeded those abuses by committing far worse ones.

In late September of 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki, a citizen of the United States born in New Mexico, was targeted and killed in Yemen in one of the Obama Regime’s infamous drone strikes. Obama and others in his government claimed that he was a leading figure of an al-Qaeda affiliate, and participated in planning attempted terrorist attacks in the U.S. that were thwarted by officials.5 Other sources dispute these accusations, saying that al-Awlaki was a rather insignificant figure whose activities were limited to sermons and writings condemning the U.S. for what he perceived as a war against Muslims.6

But whatever the truth is, as things stand, we shall never know it. This is because there was no public trial for Anwar al-Awlaki convicting him of treason, or any other crime. Administration counsel reportedly legally justified al-Awlaki’s assassination in an extensive memo arguing why the specifics of al-Awlaki’s case warranted his death as an “enemy combatant” in war,7 and therefore his case was not deserving of a judicial proceeding, or even a review. In fact, it would seem as if the administration was deliberately trying to circumvent the involvement of the judiciary, since they did not bring charges to try him in absentia, or make the case to revoke his U.S. citizenship—both perfectly legal options, albeit ones that require submitting evidence to judicial scrutiny.8

Killed alongside al-Awlaki was Samir Khan, also a U.S. citizen, who was a propagandist writing for a magazine reportedly affiliated with al-Qaeda.  According to the official story, Khan was not a specific target, and was simply unfortunate enough to be with al-Awlaki at the time that the drone’s missile killed them,9 i.e. “collateral damage”.  But, again, the evidence pertaining to this case remains secret, so the truth is not easy to discern.

However, these cases are not even the worst examples of Obama abusing his executive power to kill his own citizens.  About two weeks after Anwar al-Awlaki’s death, his son, Abdulrahman—born in Colorado—was also killed in Yemen by a drone’s missile. Reports from Administration sources originally claimed that he was an Islamist militant in his early 20s, but it was later proven that he was merely 16 and described by friends and family as a “typical American teenager.” Furthermore, he is said to have been killed along with his 17-year-old cousin, and a number of other teens and young adults.10

No one from the Obama Administration has given an official explanation as to why Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, an apparently innocent 16-year-old American, was killed in one of its infamous drone strikes,

No one from the Obama Administration has given an official explanation as to why Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, an apparently innocent 16-year-old American, was killed in one of its infamous drone strikes.

According to government officials who have leaked information about the circumstances of his death, at the time he was killed, he was with Ibrahim al-Banna, an al-Qaeda operative who was the target of the strike, thus making Abdulrahman “collateral damage.” However, Nasser al-Awlaki, the father of Anwar and grandfather of Abdulrahman who has a civil lawsuit pending against the Administration, has contested this story with his assertion—whatever it is worth—that “We can prove that Abdulrahman was not collateral damage at all, that he was intended to be killed.”11

Other than anonymous leaks to journalists, no one from the government has provided any sort of official explanation as to why a 16-year-old American was killed in a drone strike. Again, all the information related to the death of this third American citizen killed by the Obama Administration is kept from public view and scrutiny.

The executive order to assassinate a U.S. citizen—and, granted, Anwar al-Awlaki is the only case confirmed definitively as an assassination—is an act without legal precedent. It is an abuse of executive power no previous presidency—not even Bush’s—would dare attempt. Speaking on these killings, Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, has argued that due process does not always mean judicial process, and that closed-door deliberations among the president’s legal experts is a sufficient exercise of his skewed definition of that “due process”.  This argument seems to be acceptable to the credulous, the spineless, and the corrupt among my compatriots, who have yet to seriously challenge this issue, and are thereby implicitly condoning the legal precedent for the President to exercise the dictatorial power of making executive orders to kill his own citizens. Even if we entertain the argument that Obama can be trusted to only use this power against the “bad guys”, this precedent will still lie around like a loaded gun, as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson once famously said, waiting to be wielded by a less benign presidency in the future.

Those who will still support the Obama Presidency, even in light of these matters, will, of course, argue that Anwar al-Awlaki and Kahn were traitors to their country, and threats to American security, and deserved what they got.  Abdulrahman, on the other hand, was in the wrong place at the wrong time, traveling in a country that the U.S. State Department has recommended its citizens not travel to. “After all,” the typical argument goes, “we’re at war, right?  And horrible things will happen in war, right?”  True, but if we still live in a modern, civilized society governed by a rule of law, then, even in extremely chaotic conditions of war, such laws must be adhered to as much as possible, and not deliberately ignored.

How bad al-Awlaki may have been, and what crimes he was accused of are not the central issues here. Even mass murderers like Charles Manson receive trials by jury; even Nazi war criminals were tried at the Nuremberg Tribunals.

The major problem with liberally defining al-Awlaki and others as “enemy combatants” is that he could not possibly be considered a conventional combatant on a conventional battlefield during a conventional war with clearly defined methods of combat. We’re talking about a person whose actual ability to seriously threaten the life of Americans was questionable, but was nevertheless killed premeditatedly and remotely by an unmanned drone.

The dismissal Khan’s and Abdulrahman’s deaths as “collateral damage” should not be accepted without question, especially when one considers that one of the victims was a minor and most probably completely innocent of any wrongdoing.  Why does the Executive deserve our trust on these matters at all?  Why should we be content with taking their word for it?  We already know that both common soldiers, as well as high-ranking officials in the U.S. government are capable of committing war crimes, so why should the U.S. citizenry allow them to kill 16-year-old Americans and remain completely mum about it?12

Benjamin Franklin, one of the leading framers of the U.S. Constitution—famously once warned on these matters: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither..."

Benjamin Franklin, one of the leading framers of the U.S. Constitution—famously once warned on these matters: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither…”

The deaths of these three Americans are exemplary of how the War on Terror has been a justification for the expansion of executive power on an unprecedented scale.  Americans must stop kidding themselves and ask serious questions about the way their government is fighting that war, such as if its tactics are completely incompatible with both the post-WW2 standards of international law,13 and, more importantly, our beloved Constitution. The War on Terror is not an officially-declared war against any one nation and its regular, uniformed military, but an irregular war fought against a vaguely-defined enemy that could theoretically exist anywhere in the world, thereby justifying U.S. military presence anywhere in the world. Indeed, it has been the cited cause for U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and even here in the Philippines—with many cases arguably being gross violations of international legal standards respecting national sovereignty.

From looking at the cases of the al-Awlakis and Khan, I can see no good reason why their facts do not provide sufficient cause for immediate impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama and his coconspirators. All the evidence surrounding those deaths that the Executive is unwilling to submit should be subpoenaed, reviewed, and deliberated upon, and the defendants should all be ousted if that evidence proves them guilty any “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

American politicians have often been quick to condemn Arab dictators like Qaddafi and Assad for killing their own people. Perhaps they should first exorcise the devil within before seeking devils without. To continue to cheerlead Barack Obama because of an agreeable position on this or that single issue while ignoring these questions vital to the national conscience of the United States is to cheerlead Caesarism—whether wittingly or unwittingly.

______________________________________

- Notes -

1. For example, see “Thoughts on elections” by Ducky Paredes, The Malaya, Nov. 15, 2012.

2. See the Article of Impeachment of Pres. Obama for his “usurping the exclusive prerogative of Congress to commence war [in Libya] under Artilcle 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution”, written by constitutional lawyer and former U.S. Justice Department official Bruce Fein.

3. See researcher Jeff Steinberg’s speech to the National Press Club on Nov. 2:

Transcript available here.

4. See Glenn Greenwald, “Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen”, Salon.com, Apr. 7, 2010.

5. See the Wikipedia article on Anwar al-Awlaki.

6. For example, see “The Day America Died” by Paul Craig Roberts, PaulCraigRoberts.org, Oct. 3, 2011.

7. See “Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen” by Charlie Savage, The New York Times, Oct. 8, 2011.

8. See Jeffrey Steinberg and Edward Spannaus, “An Impeachable Offense: Obama’s Summary Execution of U.S. Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki”, Executive Intelligence Review, Oct. 7, 2011.

9. See the Wikipedia article on Samir Khan.

10. See “The killing of Awlaki’s 16-year-old son” by Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com, Oct. 20, 2011.

11. See Tom Junod, “The Lethal Presidency, Pt. 1: Obama’s Administration Killed a 16-Year-Old American and Didn’t Say Anything About It. This Is Justice?”, Esquire.com, Jul. 9, 2012.

12. It seems that the term “collateral damage” really has become a rather disgusting euphemism when one considers how it degrades the sacredness of individual human life to a mere “Oops!” One need only watch Wikileak’s infamous and shameful “Collateral Murder” video of trigger happy U.S. military personnel gunning down men who obviously pose no immediate threat whatsoever to see how liberal their definition of “collateral damage” can be.

In the video, after it is reported that two young children were severely wounded in the attack, one of the soldiers can be cynically heard saying something along the lines of: “Well, it’s their fault for bringing kids into a war zone.” I suppose similar sentiments can also be employed to brush off Abdulrahman’s death.

13. The Nuremberg Principles, created immediately following World War II, declared all “wars of aggression” as a war crime. In 1951, the United Nations’ International Law Commission declared that:

“Aggression is the use of force by a State or Government against another State or Government, in any manner, whatever the weapons used and whether openly or otherwise, for any reason or for any purpose other than individual or collective self-defense or in pursuance of a decision or recommendation by a competent organ of the United Nations”

By this definition, strong cases can be made to classify the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Libya as war crimes.

1 Comment

Filed under Anglo-American Imperialism, Fascism, Impeachment, Irregular warfare/terrorism, Uncategorized, Unitary Executive

One response to “How much longer will the U.S. survive as a constitutional democratic republic?

  1. Reblogged this on Young's America and commented:
    A very well written, well thought out, and well sourced commentary/analysis of the abuse of Executive power with regard to the drone issue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s