Glenn Greenwald: So much evidence, there’s no need to show it

[Luminous Animal]

http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/03/awlaki_7/singleton/

During the NSA eavesdropping controversy, Bush defenders insisted there was no harm from bypassing the FISA court because they were only eavesdropping on Bad Terrorists (who could possibly object to that?), which prompted this obvious, unanswerable question (one I asked here, among other places): if you really have so much evidence proving that the targets of your eavesdropping are Terrorists, then why not go show it to the court and get a warrant? After all, the more incriminating evidence you claim exists, the more (not less) reason there is to show it to a court. Similarly, during the controversy over Bush’s (and now Obama’s) detentions without due process, administration defenders insisted there was no need to charge the detainees or try them in a court because they were only imprisoning the-worst-of-the-worst, too-dangerous-to-release Terrorists (who could possibly object to that?), which prompted the same question: if there’s so much evidence proving they’re Terrorists, isn’t that even more of a reason to prove that in court?

Now that hordes of Obama defenders are running around justifying the President’s due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizen Anwar Awlaki based on exactly the same claim and mindset — our President targeted a Very Bad Terrorist, so no due process or disclosure of evidence was needed — the same question obviously arises: if there’s so much evidence showing that Awlaki was involved in plotting Terrorist attacks on the U.S. (as opposed merely to delivering anti-U.S. sermons protected by the First Amendment), isn’t that even more of a reason to have indicted him and charged him with crimes before killing him? Please watch this amazing video of ABC News‘ Jake Tapper persistently questioning a stonewalling, imperious White House spokesman Jay Carney about this issue; remember: he’s asking the White House what evidence justified the U.S Government’s targeting of its own citizen for assassination with no due process, and the White House is telling him: we have it in secret but don’t need to show anyone (via Robert P. Murphy)

[ThomWV]

1. Just to let you know, my Recommend did not count, its still at Zero

But thank you for the post and link. This is an impeachable offense, and sooner or later the Republicans will figure that out. Then it will only be a question of if they will impeach him - and they would be successful - or if they want to reserve this power to themselves once he's gone.

Either way the answer is not good for the people of this country, current and future.

[n2doc]

2. rec'ed, still zero. And the Repubs are just as complicit

They will never impeach Obama for this. They want it as a tool for President Jeb, or whomever they get in office in the future.

[TheKentuckian]

7. Correct, there is no desire in either party to be rid of such powers

Nor any to contain them and set up judicial and Congressional review to ensure that an Administration is using the powers in a proper manner. Hell, no one cares to verify we are hitting the correct targets or that our Intelligence services have accurate information.

[flamingdem]

9. Seriously do you want Romney in power? Greenwald says not to bother to vote nt

[Luminous Animal]

16. Actually, he says voting is not the solution to putting the brakes on extra-judicial excesses...

that some action outside the system is needed to address them.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/30/with_death_of_anwar_al_awlaki
Nowhere in the excerpt below does he urge not voting.

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, one thing that is obvious, is that voting for Democrats as opposed to Republicans doesn’t help. In fact, if you read The New York Times article from 2010 confirming that Awlaki is on the hit list, it makes clear that there’s been no instances where George Bush ordered American citizens targeted for assassination, that this is extraordinary and perhaps an unprecedented step under the Democratic president. What people in the Arab world did, when their leaders did things like imprison them, let alone kill them, and their fellow citizens without trials, is they went out into the streets and protested and demanded that it stop. It’s hard to see how voting for one of these two parties is going to end these extraordinary excesses in violations of the constitution; it clearly doesn’t. Something outside of that system is necessary to address it. That’s been proven. So, I think if Americans cared about the constitutional rights the pretended to care about under George Bush, Democrats in particular, they would be very vocally protesting and objecting to this. But, the problem is that, the opportunity to use these issues as a means to undermine Republican politicians is now gone, and so, many people who, three years ago, were pretending to care about these things, no longer do. So, the question that American citizens have to ask themselves, is whether they believe in the principles of liberty and rights that they have learned were protected by the Constitution? That’s just a piece of paper—-the Constitution—-it cannot protect those rights, only the citizenry can ensure that those rights are not trampled on; and the question is whether citizens actually believe in those.

[EFerrari]

18. The better point to have made against Greenwald's argument

is that using JSOC for assassinations apparently did start under Cheney, as reported by Sy Hersh, remember?

So it isn't entirely accurate to say this program is unprecedented, although we don't know if Americans have been targeted before Obama was in office.

That would be a legitimate criticism of Greenwald although his underlying point, that both Democrats and Republicans have not put brakes on these excesses is correct.

[LoZoccolo]

20. I am unrecommending because Glenn Greenwald wrote it.

[COLGATE4]

3. +1

[Luminous Animal]

5. Did you watch the Jake Tapper vs Jay Carney video?

http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/09/jake-tapper-vs.-jay-carney-on-president-killing-u.s.-citizens.html

Here's a link to the transcript but reading the words does not compare to the impact of watching it:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/30/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney

Jake.

Q You said that Awlaki was demonstrably and provably involved in operations. Do you plan on demonstrating --

MR. CARNEY: I should step back. He is clearly -- I mean "provably" may be a legal term. I think it has been well established, and it has certainly been the position of this administration and the previous administration that he is a leader in -- was a leader in AQAP; that AQAP was a definite threat, was operational, planned and carried out terrorist attacks that, fortunately, did not succeed, but were extremely serious -- including the ones specifically that I mentioned, in terms of the would-be Christmas Day bombing in 2009 and the attempt to bomb numerous cargo planes headed for the United States. And he was obviously also an active recruiter of al Qaeda terrorists. So I don't think anybody in the field would dispute any of those assertions.

Q You don't think anybody else in the government would dispute that?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I wouldn’t know of any credible terrorist expert who would dispute the fact that he was a leader in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and that he was operationally involved in terrorist attacks against American interests and citizens.

Q Do you plan on bringing before the public any proof of these charges?

MR. CARNEY: Again, the question makes us -- has embedded within it assumptions about the circumstances of his death that I’m just not going to address.

Q How on earth does it have -- I really don't understand. How does -- he’s dead. You are asserting that he had operational control of the cargo plot and the Abdulmutallab plot. He’s now dead. Can you tell us, or the American people -- or has a judge been shown --

MR. CARNEY: Well, again, Jake, I’m not going to go any further than what I’ve said about the circumstances of his death and --

Q I don't even understand how they're tied.

MR. CARNEY: -- the case against him, which, again, you’re linking. And I think that --

Q You said that he was responsible for these things.

MR. CARNEY: Yes, but again --

Q Is there going to be any evidence presented?

MR. CARNEY: I don't have anything for you on that.

Q Do you not see at all -- does the administration not see at all how a President asserting that he has the right to kill an American citizen without due process, and that he’s not going to even explain why he thinks he has that right is troublesome to some people?

MR. CARNEY: I wasn’t aware of any of those things that you said actually happening. And again, I’m not going to address the circumstances of Awlaki’s death. I think, again, it is an important fact that this terrorist, who was actively plotting -- had plotted in the past, and was actively plotting to attack Americans and American interests, is dead. But I’m not going to -- from any angle -- discuss the circumstances of his death.

[gratuitous]

11. The transcript's damning enough

Carney's going to get whiplash, sluing back and forth between "I wasn't aware of any of those things that you said actually happening" in one breath and "this terrorist, who was . . . actively plotting to attack Americans" in the next. Was he a terrorist? Or is that just a surmise? If he was, is there evidence? If not, why would you say he was a terrorist?

I'm afraid I've grown totally out of touch with today's fashionable ethics. Next thing you know, I'll be hollering at clouds or yelling at those damn kids to get offa my lawn (when I live in an apartment). But try as I might, I keep stumbling over that darned Constitution and its Bill of Rights with that all that fair trial rigamarole. I really need someone to help me trim my conscience to fit this year's fashion.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Because I said so! Now shut up and eat your peas. nt

[leftyohiolib]

4. +1 here also

[COLGATE4]

6. But..but/.. it's not fun listening to what Glenn has to say. My mind

is made up - don't confuse me with facts like, say the Constitution or Due Process. Shoot 'em all and let God sort them out, that's the spirit. My President, right or wrong. Sound familiar?

[flamingdem]

8. In his Democracy Now interview Greenwald says Obama and Bush are equally

evil in fact Obama is worse ... and he advocates not bothering to vote. See for yourself.

[EFerrari]

13. Could you post the transcript? That doesn't sound like Greenwald. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

14. Of course it doesn't sound like Greenwald! Here is the transcript:

JUAN GONZALEZ: Glenn, what can people who are concerned about this extraordinary extension of the powers of a president to basically ignore any kind of due process with our American citizens, what can they do?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, one thing that is obvious, is that voting for Democrats as opposed to Republicans doesn’t help. In fact, if you read The New York Times article from 2010 confirming that Awlaki is on the hit list, it makes clear that there’s been no instances where George Bush ordered American citizens targeted for assassination, that this is extraordinary and perhaps an unprecedented step under the Democratic president. What people in the Arab world did, when their leaders did things like imprison them, let alone kill them, and their fellow citizens without trials, is they went out into the streets and protested and demanded that it stop. It’s hard to see how voting for one of these two parties is going to end these extraordinary excesses in violations of the constitution; it clearly doesn’t. Something outside of that system is necessary to address it. That’s been proven. So, I think if Americans cared about the constitutional rights the pretended to care about under George Bush, Democrats in particular, they would be very vocally protesting and objecting to this. But, the problem is that, the opportunity to use these issues as a means to undermine Republican politicians is now gone, and so, many people who, three years ago, were pretending to care about these things, no longer do. So, the question that American citizens have to ask themselves, is whether they believe in the principles of liberty and rights that they have learned were protected by the Constitution? That’s just a piece of paper—-the Constitution—-it cannot protect those rights, only the citizenry can ensure that those rights are not trampled on; and the question is whether citizens actually believe in those.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/30/with_death_of_anwar_al_awlaki

[Gregorian]

10. I'm sorry to break the news, but we're in the minority. People love drama.

I am recovering from a barrage of comments about how I am living in a fairy world because I believe that we should not be barbarians, and instead do these things in civilized ways. Sort of like not shredding the Constitution.

I'm stunned that being civilized puts me in a minority.

[trumad]

15. Show us the evidence now that he is dead.

Show us the evidence that allowed the US to assassinate one of it's own citizens.

[Luminous Animal]

19. Oh for sure Al-Awlaki could have been a fake "radical" and is now living in

picket fence suburbia somewhere. Created perhaps to feed our blood-lust for the "enemy"? And the assassination just stage craft to boost Obama's big mean balls out terrorist fighting credentials?

[EFerrari]

21. I think the poster meant, now that he's dead, the evidence should be shown.

I tend to think the evidence should be presented before the execution.

[Luminous Animal]

22. Sorry trumad. I misread your post! Greenwald addresses that point, as well...

"some journalists and priests of the National Security State are now calling on the Obama administration to reveal the evidence proving Awlaki’s guilt; while that is certainly better than nothing, evidence presented in a one-sided manner that isn’t subject to review is the opposite of due process; even more so, the idea of executing a citizen and thereafter showing evidence of guilt is precisely what the Queen in Alice in Wonderland demanded when she decreed: ”Sentence first – verdict afterwards!” That we’re reduced to begging the government to at least comply with the standards of Lewis Carroll’s Queen of Hearts is about as potent an indicator of the depths to which we’ve fallen."

[trumad]

23. I think it important to see the evidence...

simply because of my mistrust for the Gov.

[Solly Mack]

17. K&R also

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2046997

and if it gets posted again...I'll K&R it again. :)

[Luminous Animal]

24. I just K&Red that one, too!

I need to look at the Greatest page more often, that's for sure.