October 15, 2011

Letter to the Editor *

 

This is a Letter to the Editor that I wrote. It was published but almost half was omitted. Here it is, in its entirety.

I couldn't disagree more with the Oct. 5 letter, "Al-Awlaki ceded civilian rights". Nowhere in the Constitution does it give Presidents the authorization to create a secret, lawless committee, without oversight of any kind, for the purpose of coming up with American "kill lists"; nor does it allow a President, without presenting a shred of evidence in a single court, to act on such a list and sign off on the assassination of an American citizen. Besides, assassination is illegal under American law.

As much as I despise Mr. al-Awlaki's terrorist-inspiring rants and what they provoked, like it or not, that speech is protected under the First Amendment. And even if it wasn't, I didn't know that death, without due process, was the penalty for such a crime.

And if you want to use "treason" to justify Mr. al-Awlaki's assassination, according to the Constitution, either "two witnesses" or a "confession in open court" is required to prove it.

If Mr. al-Awlaki was truly guilty of everything the Obama administration says, why not go through proper legal channels and get an indictment in either open court or a secret FISA court? Why hide behind slander and leaks from "anonymous government officials" who not only admitted that "some of the intelligence" against Mr. al-Awlaki is patchy, but have an interest in the public believing that he plotted terrorist attacks? And why use legal roadblocks to prevent Mr. al-Awlaki's father from challenging the government's decision to target his son?

When a President takes his oath, he's obligated to protected, preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States. But since 9/11, both Presidents Bush and Obama have used fear and the threat of terrorism as an excuse to circumvent the Constitution, usurp power and strip away civil liberties. For instance, they've been spying on Americans without a warrant, harassing, intimidating and subpoenaing reporters and Wikileaks to prevent them and future whistleblowers from disclosing government criminality, rescinded habeas corpus, conveniently declared prisoners, regardless of where they were captured, as "enemy combatants" and locked them up without charges and trial (indefinite detention), and have repeatedly misused the "state secrets" excuse to keep information on detainees and their treatment from becoming public (when China, North Korea and Iran do those things they're "evil"; but when we do it, it's justified). And what do we have to show for all that? Rising U.S. casualties in Afghanistan, endless war in a number of countries, and we have to go through a mugging before we can get on to an airplane.

Regardless of what Mr. al-Awlaki was truly guilty of, I think it's frightening that we have a President who ordered the assassination of an American citizen in Yemen without due process. Imagine if a "President Cheney" had that power. Now, he would.

But what could be more frightening, is that Americans on both sides of the political aisle, including the Oct. 5 letter writer, not only wrap themselves in the flag and applaud this systematic evisceration of our First, Fourth and Fifth ("due process") Amendment guarantees, no questions asked, but have the nerve to mock those of us who question such a blatant grab of illegal and unconstitutional presidential power.

In the final portion of the Oct. 5 letter, the writer doesn't realize that America is also responsible for "making war, especially against innocent civilians." A lot more war (and don't forget torture). But for some reason it's justified when we do it. And we wonder why they hate us.

Note: Also see this and this (October 20 insert: and this), and in regards to "using fear and the threat of terrorism," this (October 20 insert: and this).


+/- show/hide this post


<< Home