Today in America features Vallejo

Read about it in  the latest City of Vallejo Newsletter HERE

Ethicalego (Kenneth Brooks) discusses current events from a critical thinking perspective rarely expressed elsewhere

Hypocrites assert an Obama kill list

By Kenneth Brooks

6/13/12

News commentary is abuzz about New York Times assertion that President Obama has a kill list of people targeted by U.S. Drones in the war on terrorism. Some commentators describe the list as a stunning, unprincipled, and unchecked use of presidential power. Just when I presume news reporting in the United States and American readers' gullibility reached the limits of absurdity, both prove me wrong.

The Constitution names the President Commander of all of America's armed forces and responsible for national defense. Americans are contradictory that hold Obama responsible for duties not assigned by the Constitution like unemployment rates, stock market prices, and public school quality, but criticize his use of constitutional and Congress granted powers to wage war against America's enemies.

On September 14, 2001, the U.S. Congress issued a "Joint Resolution: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States."

"IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Clearly, this resolution authorizes the President as Commander of the U.S. Armed Forces to make a list of terrorist enemies and to use U.S. armed forces to kill them. Some people might contend the resolution authorized the President only to stop future attacks and not necessarily kill people. They argue he could arrest America's enemies and bring them to trial. This may be possible sometime. Nevertheless, the U.S. Armed Forces are a war making force organized to destroy and to kill when normal policing and judicial processes in defense of security fail. Congress signaled its conclusion that war was the best defense strategy against terrorism by approving uses of the military force against it. Whether correct or mistaken, this was the mandate of Congress for presidential action that it has not revoked. Therefore, some Americans characterizing Obama a president with a personal kill list outside the demands of war is wrong and bordering on subversion.

I suggested when Congress passed the September 14, 2001 Resolution that it was unnecessarily irresponsible by its broadness. It was different from past declarations of war against identified nations. Instead, it extended authority to President George W. Bush to identify terrorist enemies and to use military force against them anywhere in the world no matter their involvement. Bush announced Operation Enduring Freedom as war on global terrorism that would not distinguish between terrorist organizations and nations or governments that harbored them.

People are hypocritical that believe the waves of B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers; F-14 and F/A fighters and Tomahawk cruise missiles Bush ordered against Afghanistan October 7, 2001 were moral killing and the drone strikes approved by Obama are personal and immoral. They forget orders by previous Presidents for military uses of bombs, napalm, and Agent Orange herbicide on enemy and noncombatants during the Vietnam War. They forget Presidents' WWII decisions that targeted German and Japanese cities for regular, incendiary and atomic bomb attacks. The difference is that during October 2001, the shock from destructive attacks on the American homeland still dulled most Americans' concerns for the plight of noncombatants in those attacks.

No matter the 9/11 attacks, most Americans still do not recognize the full horrors of war as an ongoing experience. Except occasionally, few of them consider the death and injury our armed forces members face daily. They ignore that President Obama faces the terrible burden of war decisions daily that may or may not be correct, but will result in death or injury for terrorists, noncombatants, or American military members. There are no safe, easy moral decisions for a president at war.

I understand some Americans disagree with some war strategy or with continuing the war. I do too. They have the right as free citizens to discuss their concerns on that basis and to petition Congress to end the war. However, many of them lack the moral courage to state forthrightly the U.S. Armed Forces achieved its mission and it is time to end the killing. They fear a new terrorist attack the next day may prove them wrong and subject them to condemnation. Instead, they construct safe attacks against the integrity of the President who does not have the option of ambivalence. People are contemptible that cowardly construct their criticism of the war as an attack on the integrity of Obama as if he were a mob boss executing a vicious personal hit list.

Copyright © 2008-2012 Ethicalego.com Reproduction without written permission for profit making is prohibited. Reproduction for personal use and distribution that include the Ethicalego copyright and address is permitted.

Comments

Add New Search RSS

wharf rat   |June.20.2012 The Rosenbergs had a show trial but the final outcome was the same . suffice it to say if you screw the US Govt or any entity more powerful than yourself you might get taken out Citizen or not it's all about the food chain .

Billy the Greek   |June.19.2012 Elmax To clarify, al-Awlaki was a US Citizen by birth like many, if not most of us. He was not a naturalized US Citizen. Although in cases of treason this distinction is not important. In acts of treason even a US Citizen by birth can lose his/her citizenship. You outline the same simple process for requiring a US Citizen who is under investigation to appear in court to answer charges, whatever they might be. If he does not he becomes a fugitive. As for being comfortable with no "formal procedure" being in place let's not conflate "formal" with "public" ... I do not pretend to understand the procedure in place at the NSC. I know that there is a lot of sensationalist media hype out there about so called "Death Lists" and we should treat it as such. The "slippery slope" argument remains a valid one. The government could do a better public relations job of explaining, at least at a general level, the decision making process. When I say "goverment" I take a non-partisan view. This is not a political issue ... it is a legal and moral issue. Thank you for raising intelligent and important points Elmax. Good discussion.

Elimax   |June.18.2012 Simple solution to the citizenship problem. Post notice that the terrorists citizenship is being revoked unless the individual appears in court. If the individual does not appear, citizenship is removed (by a Judge) and he/she can then be treated as needed by the military. Are you OK with no formal procedure in place to determine what American Citizen lives and which dies?

Billy the Greek   |June.18.2012 Elmax states (the obvious) when he says "As an American Citizen I have the RIGHT to the justice system, to not being worried that my government is going to kill me". I can assure you that al-Awlaki would have been afforded all the prerequisites due him as an American citizen by our justice system if he would have preferred to exercise that option. However, he decided to become a traitor as well as a terrorist ... specifically targeting his country of birth. As a result, I'm sure that he was VERY worried that "his government" was going to kill him. And kill him they did. Traitors cannot be allowed a free ride. I realize that this dicussion inevitably leads to the "slippy slope" argument that Ron Paul so often uses but let's get real here ... this is war ... traitors are shot during time of war. Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution clearly delineates those acts which are considered treasonous. And in a curious bit of irony, the only form of treason in early Islamic history was seen as the attempt to overthrow a just government or waging war against the State. According to Arab tradition, the prescribed punishment ranged from imprisonment to the severing of limbs and the death penalty depending on the severity of the crime. Nowadays it seems only Apostasy (leaving Islam) is treasonous.

Elimax   |June.16.2012 Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the only president that has authorized drone strikes (killing) of AMERICAN CITIZENS? In my eyes that is one of the biggest issues that people don't want to talk about. No judge, no jury, no due process, just being a name on a kill list. As an American Citizen I have the RIGHT to the justice system, to not being worried that my government is going to kill me.

tramky   |June.15.2012 I would agree with Brooks' assertions that the people of this country have little understanding of what was & is actually going on in the terror wars of Iraq & Afghanistan. While this 'war' has been going on, this country has been through a truly terrible economic trauma that has ruined the lives of millions of people, destroyed trillions of dollars of American wealth, and created large numbers of corporate employers that no longer need a lot of people to make a lot of money. Not only will millions of 'jobs' not come back, they aren't even needed anymore While we are in these wars, there is no public outcry to 'join the fight', to go to armed services recruitment centers, or to sacrifice anything to help the war effort. No, no, we are simply told to 'go to college' or 'get a job' or 'spend your money to help the economy'. Or sit on the couch and watch Dancing With The Stars. The only time when we are confronted with the realities of this so-called war on terror is when we see TV announcements for organizations like the Wounded Warrior Foundation and one or two others, announcements that include clips of actual soldiers who have returned from these places with horrible injuries--missing legs and/or arms, a brain damaged paraplegic.

tramky   |June.14.2012 The last time the United States was engaged in a declared war was in the early 1940s. NONE of the so-called wars since then have been declared by Congress, they have been police actions under United Nations dictates or more or less random actions taken for a variety of reasons that, by and large, achieved little. Obama is just another President to go down that same path, as has been the case since Truman. Of course, President Obama publicly 'blames' Bush for the same economic malaise that Brooks claims is not part of the Presidential powers. The hypocrisy zips right to the Oval Office and its current sitting President. What the media needs to tell the people of the United States is that all this political rhetoric is just a bunch of B.S. and that it means virtually nothing. Many years ago it was decided, after considerable public discussion, that Presidents have virtually NO influence over job creation except for Federal jobs, whether they be military or civilian. Liberal Progressives view the Federal government as a jobs program for the otherwise-unemployable. Most recently, the TSA was created by the Bush administration as some kind of response to 9/11. It is now a massive flim-flam, a personnel operation, not a security operation. The Federal government is full of this kind of thing, and is full of employees who don't work hard, who can't be fired, and who exist for their pensions and Medicare after wasting 30 years of their lives. In America, it is possible to work and still be unemployable.

Jim Davis   |June.14.2012 Good point, Mr. Brooks. We and the President are in new territory. History won't help much. There are slimy Muslims all over the world plotting and planning to hurt free people. Is that a "war"? I don't know. But I want the President to squash every slimy Muslim he can find, with B-52s or drones or assasins or snipers. Kill 'em. Thanks for defending the President. He suffers a lot of cheap shots. Love, Jim

Write comment
Name:
Email:
Website:
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.23

3.23 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."