THE AMERICAN THINKER by JOHN GRIFFING & WND by JOHN GRIFFING
Reblogged from October 5, 2011
Obama, the Hitman: Killing Due Process
One of the many unfulfilled aims of the Obama administration has been the criminalization of political opponents via the machinery of U.S. anti-terror statutes and other devices. So far, President Obama and his cronies have stopped at saber-rattling, confronted by an extremely heightened public awareness and growing anger amongst average Americans at the Obama agenda. Many will recall the innumerable statements of regulatory czar Cass Sunstein and his call for banning “falsehoods,” as well as the infamous DHS reports attempting to tar conservatives as potential terrorists. More recently, the TSA has sought to make all Americans traveling for the holidays into terror suspects, attracting significant public outrage. The direct approach has arguably failed.
But where the direct approach has failed, a more silent approach is poised to succeed. No constitution has an unconditional right to life — except the U.S. Constitution. In the United States, no man can be deprived of life without due process — i.e., a trial by a jury of his peers. However, using shady CIA “hit lists” designed to thwart American-born terrorists, President Obama claims the power to capriciously do away with this most fundamental of American freedoms. Through a new clandestine assassination program targeting selected citizens, Obama will void due process. The list of targeted Americans is currently not available to the public. The New York Times and the Washington Post both report that Obama has approved the assassination of U.S. citizens engaged in terrorist acts overseas. U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was killed pursuant to this new program.
Yes, Awlaki was evil, and his behavior was criminal and treasonous. But before the dust settles and his assassination becomes precedent, a few questions come to mind: Islamic terrorists may be the object, but what happens if this power is selectively turned against political opponents? Is there any accountability? Who decides who is and isn’t a terrorist? America cannot allow the precious right to life to fade without a fight. No compromise can be tolerated on a freedom this basic.
Ironically, this highly unconstitutional protocol has been lauded by Republican Americans ever-concerned with the spread of Islamic terrorism. The sentiment among many is one of relief, that finally President Obama takes the threat of Islamic terror seriously. Could this magical change be the salvation of America in the War on Terror?
Obama’s habitual actions until the present point speak to the contrary. President Obama gives Miranda rights to foreign terrorists without first attempting to garner information that could save American lives. President Obama delays an investigation of the atrocities at Fort Hood. President Obama posts the TSA playbook online for the all the world to see. President Obama makes strategically damning declarations like “America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam.” President Obama appoints officials who publicly advocate Islamic sharia law. President Obama says that the aims of Hamas are fine as long as they are achieved “peacefully.” And finally, President Obama has sought to grant foreign enemy combatants not even protected by the Geneva Convention the privileges of U.S. citizens.
And now we are supposed to believe that because President Obama is willing to trash the fundamental right of Americans to due process without so much as an amendment, he is somehow turning up the heat in the War on Terror? This is typical liberal-style “warfare.” War becomes a means to gain power at home instead of protecting freedom abroad. As the sage Abraham Lincoln would remark in a letter to law partner William Herndon:
The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.
Lincoln viewed unlimited war as the “most oppressive of all kingly oppressions,” and yet in the present state of affairs, we have given to the presidency the awesome power of fighting a protracted and ill-defined war, by any means necessary. Obama is now the equivalent of an elected king.
Consequently, the present move of the Obama administration towards KGB-style assassination of U.S. citizens should be regarded with close scrutiny.
Many warned that one day very soon, the PATRIOT Act and its sister legislation would be used against American citizens. The broad and ambiguous language found in the PATRIOT Act gives the president, whoever that may be, the power to determine what is and is not “terror.” Section 411, G, vi, II of the PARIOT Act defines a terrorist as anyone “designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General”.
Everything that follows is contingent on this loose definition — i.e. warrantless wiretapping, warrantless entry, human tracking, access to bank statements and phone records, access to internet records, “enhanced” interrogation, and now assassination. Predictably, as a result of this accountability vacuum, the definition of terrorism is subject to frequent and conspicuous change — e.g., the DHS report labeling pro-lifers “terrorists”. President Obama’s preferred definition of terrorism generally involves Christian bigots and White Supremacists . In fact, Obama’s counterterrorism advisor wants to delist “jihadists” as security threats.
Even the philosophical basis of the PATRIOT Act is flawed. If citizens are found conspiring against the United States, a provision already exists in the Constitution to address it. It’s called “treason.” As long as due process is afforded, treason is punishable by death. Recall the trial and execution of the Rosenbergs in the last century.
By ordering the CIA to shoot and kill American citizens if classified as “terrorist,” a power the White House now wields , both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are violated, since the Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,” and the Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]” The “person” and “life” of American citizens are clearly breached by such an order. The exceptions to the Fourth Amendment are arguably infringed by the entering of homes without warrant — a practice sanctioned by the PATRIOT Act — since “hot pursuit” is not always a factor, and because the home has traditionally been a place where individuals possessed a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The courts have held that warrantless wiretapping, also a power found in the PATRIOT Act, is illegal and usurps constitutionally guaranteed liberty .
These breathtaking powers all fall under the vague and limitless definition of terrorism now in the hands of one of the least trustworthy men ever to sit in the White House.
It was Benjamin Franklin who once said, “They that surrender essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety.” America may be “safer” looking up little girls’ skirts, but at what cost? If freedom vanishes to guarantee peace of mind at airports, can al-Qaeda not claim de facto victory in the War on Terror? Put simply, if constitutional rights can be removed by mere statute, then they are not rights.
Nothing is more certain than that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The power by which we are “safer” today will be our ruin tomorrow.
Trust in a powerful leader is not the American way. “Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism,” Thomas Jefferson once said. Americans must not trust that President Obama will use this new power responsibly. We must “bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” Only then will all Americans, and not merely those who embrace Obama’s radical agenda, be secure in their liberty.
 USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, 107th Congress, 1st sess., (26 Oct. 2001).
 “Homeland Security Warns of Rise in Right-Wing Extremism,” FoxNews, 14 April 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/14/homeland-security-warns-rise-right-wing-extremism/, (Accessed 4 Mar. 2010).
 “Errol Southers Ranting about Christian Identity Terrorist Groups,” YouTube, 11 Jan. 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8MaUSu4isk, (Accessed 18 April 2010).
 Glenn Greenwald, “Presidential Assassinations of U.S. Citizens,” Salon, 27 Jan. 2010, http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen, (Accessed 18 April 2010).
 Charlie Savage and James Risen, “Federal Judge Finds NSA Wiretaps Illegal,” NYT, 31 Mar. 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01nsa.html, (Accessed 18 April 2010).
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Congressman blasts Obama’s decision to ‘arm’ extremists
Calls decision to give Muslim Brotherhood F-16s ‘unwise’
Published: 19 hours ago
John Griffing is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and is published across an array of conservative media, both in the realm of commentary and research.
Congressman Ted Poe, R-Texas, says it is irresponsible for Barack Obama to be “arming” a country that may be aiming for the destruction of Israel with a shipment of 20 F-16 fighter jets.
“It is reckless and unwise for the U.S. to give F-16s to Egypt and its new president/dictator, controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood,” he told WND. “This extremist group is notoriously anti-American and anti-Israel. The United States should not be arming a country ruled by a group that has the destruction of Israel in its charter.”
Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan said, “American tax dollars must not be used to aid and abet any dictatorial regime that stands with terrorists,” and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said, “We should also be cautious about the arms we provide.”
Obama is proceeding with his plan to gift Egypt with 20 brand new F-16 fighter jets as part of a $450 million aid package promised to Egypt in 2010 when it was led by the U.S.-friendly Hosni Mubarak regime.
Now Egypt is governed by the openly hostile Muslim Brotherhood, which has called for the destruction of America and Israel. The new President Mohammed Morsi, head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, recently joined in a public prayer to the effect of “Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, disperse them, rend them asunder.”
Poe, a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, wasn’t pleased. Nor was Gen. Jim Cash, the former director of NORAD, who believes Obama’s actions just plain wrong.
“In my opinion, continuing to support them financially through foreign aid is criminal. I say that to emphasize how I feel about providing any type of weapon system to them. We have an out-of-control government right now, and this will cost this nation greatly in the long run,” he told WND.
America in the past frequently has withdrawn promises of arms shipments when instability seems evident.
But the promised delivery is going ahead for Morsi, whose regime recently began talks with Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is known for his virulent calls for the overthrow of the West and his pursuit of nuclear weapons.
He has said he wants to “wipe Israel off the face of the map” and that “We don’t shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world.”
Critics believe that by doing business with Ahmadinejad, Morsi has forfeited his right to military help from the U.S., most certainly Obama’s gift of 20 F-16s.
But Obama’s pursuit of his own plan falls on the heels of other situations where critics contend he has given aid to those who are not America’s friends.
Among those incidents:
Obama proposed granting civilian protections to Islamic terrorists.
Obama indirectly funneled $20 million to terrorist organization Hamas. Obama has publicly stated that the aims of Hamas are fine, so long as they are achieved “peacefully.”
Obama reneged on missile defense pledges to Eastern European allies in a leaked deal with the Russian Federation, and used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip in the face of British.
Obama has sought cuts to the U.S. nuclear deterrent that would reduce deliverable warheads to 300, which could leave America critically exposed to possible nuclear attack.
Obama has begun announcing once secret U.S. missile tests and satellite launches.
Obama unilaterally ended a strategic practice called “calculated ambiguity,” considered crucial by defense insiders, publicizing the exact number of warheads in America’s arsenal.
Obama has pledged to “de-MIRV” all American ICBMs – dramatically reducing options if an exchange ever took place between the United States and Russia – as there were some 3,000 strategic targets listed in the former Soviet Union at the close of the last decade.
Obama has allowed Iran to acquire top secret U.S. drone technology. Drones have self-destruct capability and, as Dick Cheney pointed out, can alternatively be destroyed by U.S. fighter-jets from the air – preventing acquisition by U.S. enemies. Former NORAD Director Jim Cash, when contacted by WND, said he did not believe the drone acquisition to be accidental.
Obama has publicly stated that Iran has the right to attain “nuclear energy.”
Obama has sent guns to Mexican drug cartels, not for tracking purposes, but in an apparent move to transfer weapons across international borders.
Obama removed “jihadi” from the national security lexicon.
Obama is vocally critical of America’s “superpower” status.
Obama ordered the creation of a “citizen assassination” program, attends “kill committee” meetings for the same, all while advocating Miranda rights for foreign terrorists.
In addition to the list, which is not exhaustive, there are structural issues, like intelligence leaks earlier this year or the leak of the TSA playbook, which could conceivably enable American enemies to exploit weaknesses in current transportation infrastructure.
There are also the more philosophical issues that are thought by some to represent an inherent anti-American default position on the part of the president. The Muslim Prayer Day in 2009 is one such example.
Imams were permitted by Obama to hold a Muslim Prayer Day near White House premises in 2009, the same year Obama prohibited a similar Christian “Day of Prayer” despite the longstanding precedent for such gatherings. One of the speakers at the event is on record saying, “We are going to the White House, so that Islam will be victorious, Allah willing, and the White House will become … Muslim house.”
Similarly, Siraj Wihhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 WTC bombings, was invited to deliver the “Juma,” an Islamic prayer, at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. Wihhaj once remarked, “It is my duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Quran.”
The invitation later was withdrawn after media coverage made the issue the focus of controversy.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/congressman-blasts-obamas-decision-to-arm-extremists/#TViZelK7jDHJdAiq.99
- Senate Approves Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens in U.S. (blacklistednews.com)
- Congressman blasts Obama’s decision to ‘arm’ extremists (wnd.com)
- And the biggest lie of 2012 is … (wnd.com)
- Hottest stories of 2012 (wnd.com)
- And the biggest lie of 2012 is .. Benghazi (iranaware.com)
- NDAA 2013: Drones, Permanent War And Indefinite Detention Without Charge Or Trial For American Citizens On American Soil (ironboltbruce.com)
- NDAA – The Final Battle by Chris Hedges (dandelionsalad.wordpress.com)
- Scandal! ‘Religious’ nuts snatching birth control (wnd.com)
- America has brand-new Benedict Arnold (conservativebyte.com)
- President Has Double Dilemma in Pentagon Choice (bloomberg.com)