It sounds like fiction, but it isn't. This process is the one used by the Obama Administration to designate a US citizen for assassination.
The story appeared at Reuters.com.
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.
The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy.
No law establishing its existence. No operating rules. No Congressional oversight. No accountability. No way for Congress or the American people to verify that the intelligence behind the decision was accurate.
This is no way to run the most transparent administration in history.
Here's what really bugs me about this whole thing. Bush was excoriated in the press for justifying enhanced interrogation techniques, which many held equivalent to torture. Those same folks, the ones screaming for impeachment and trial by the World Court, are mostly silent while a President from their party orders the murder of an American citizens.
Folks, Awlaki was a bad man, but our President has just given himself the power to order the death of an American citizen with no eternal review whatsoever. That is far more dangerous than anything the terrorists could do.
It can't be allowed to stand. The President does not have the right to declare citizens to be enemies of the state and to execute them without trial. That power is not afforded to any branch of the government anywhere in the Constitution.
Yet Obama may very well be allowed to get away with it as his accomplices in the lap dog media remain silent.
Speaking of accomplices, let's not forget his allies in Congress, who have just introduced a bill that would allow him to seal all of his Presidential records after he leaves office.
U.S. citizens may never know how or why an individual was targeted, just that they were declared an enemy of the state.
Where this becomes even scarier is in situations where we aren't talking about the 'kill' portion of 'kill or capture.' Essentially, this panel has the power to order the arrest and incarceration of any American citizen they designate, again, without review or oversight. Based on the Reuters report, the President claims to have the authority to 'disappear' citizens, without trial and without charges. I'm telling you folks, this is bad stuff here; this is the kind of thing that brings down countries.
We can't allow this to go on.
This is beyond politics. Bush opened the door with the Patriot Act; Obama just walked through it. The next President will open it a bit wider, and so on. That's the nature of power; unless opposed, it accrues. Who will oppose these excesses? Who will speak up?
Here's a question for you to consider: Are there ANY Presidential candidates talking about the Reuters report today?
If so, I haven't heard. Instead, everybody wants to talk about Obama's jobs bill. It's safe and doesn't require any independent thought. If you're a Democrat, you're for it; Republican, against it. But the issue of the unchecked power grab by the executive branch, well, we don't want to think about that one because it cuts both ways. Political activists want the President to be powerful so when their guy holds the seat, he can accomplish their agenda. They'll tolerate Presidential power for the other team because they know eventually it will be their turn to play.
Politicians aren't the answer. It's going to have top be us.
Are we up to the challenge?
