The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPhilip Giraldi Archive
The Assassination Bureau
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I am astonished that some otherwise sane and reasonable people cannot see the incredible danger to all Americans resulting from President Obama’s without-due-process execution of a fellow citizen by drone. I recommend that any remaining agnostics out there read this excellent article by Paul Craig Roberts and more particularly view the four minute YouTube that is embedded in the piece in which a White House spokesman dismisses any need to provide evidence that Anwar al-Awlaki had committed a capital crime. The White House view is that everyone knows that he is a scumbag and that is enough.

Yes folks, if they can do it to al-Awlaki they can do it to any one of us.

(Republished from The American Conservative by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Assassinations 
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. But he was an evil man with a funny sounding name.

    Now if we had just blown up Fred Snyder from Muskegon for buying codeine up in Canada with a drone, after all he was about to traffic in a controlled substance, we may have outcry…

  2. The Robert’s article makes for very grim reading indeed. One is left to wondering in complete darkness whether there was any judicial review, indeed whether there was any coherent process at all that wasn’t completely stacked against the subject/target/victim. An ironic measure of how supine we have become is that when Ron Paul, a candidate for his party’s nomination who has a substantial following, raised this issue as potentially an impeachable offense (as it rightly is), he is either ignored or his observation is spun as more evidence that he is aberrational. We are also left to wondering in the dark whether, in the many layers of bureaucrats and operatives who were just following orders to carry out this operation, anyone objected. The whole thing just leaves one shaking his head.

  3. tz says:

    I’ve pointed out the cognitive dissonance between this and the assassination of George Tiller, late-term abortionist. The reactions were opposite.

  4. Pointsman says:

    It’s a grossly inefficient assassination method.

    Taking moral lessons from scientists is hazardous, but:

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/10/03/drone-assassinations-hurt-the-u-s-more-than-they-help-us/

    From the link: “A 2009 Brookings Institution report estimated that U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan had killed 10 civilians on average for every militant.”

  5. And by the “without due process” caveat, we mean like the “due process” afforded Troy Davis; or better yet, Casey Anthony. The “what about the Constitution” argument is specious, and requires Americans to suspend reality and concede that our judicial enterprise (civil, criminal, local, federal) has ANYTHING to do with justice or the Bill of Rights.

  6. TomB says:

    Phil Giraldi wrote:

    “I am astonished that some otherwise sane and reasonable people cannot see the incredible danger to all Americans resulting from President Obama’s without-due-process execution of a fellow citizen by drone.”

    It seems to me that the reason lots of people aren’t seeing this—especially among the general public where it is even more true—is because they perceive that a correct, lawful course of action was taken by our government. Mostly if not totally in Congress’ clear recognition that we are in a state of war.

    War changes things the public believes, and indeed I believe that the courts are going to hold the same thing too constitutionally, as indeed that one court cited by in the Roberts’ piece noted by Phil already has. When Congress declares someone or something an enemy, it makes those who are a part of same or who join it into rebels, and neither the public nor the courts I think are going to say that our Commander-in-Chief can’t kill rebels when he can and wants. Or do so only after giving ’em a lawyer, a trial, a jury, an appeal, and blah blah blah.

    No different than even the lesser situation would have provoked with the public I think when, say, Jane Fonda was sitting on that ack-ack gun in Hanoi had she suddenly experienced a Hellfire missile fly up her ass.

    Thus I think railing at this aspect of things just isn’t going to go anywhere, although that’s not to say that I approve of what Obama did here. (Because I don’t.) Regardless of my feelings though I am still deeply sorry to see Ron Paul talking impeachment here making himself look like a Dennis Kucinich or Michael Moore-type who are always running around talking impeachment over everything.

    Instead it seems to me not just more effective, but also getting to the real core of what’s wrong with the situation by just keeping the emphasis on the simple fundamental idiocy behind it, which then makes it simple to argue as well:

    A.) That no, of course the people who are putting their lives up against our terrifying military by attacking us are not doing so because they hate our T.V. programs. They are doing so because they hate what our policies over there mean to them and their loved ones.

    B.) That those policies—esp. that of supporting Israel—are not only not necessary for the United States, and are not only not even helpful to the United States, but indeed are greatly damaging to us. Such as … getting us the Oil Shock of the 1970’s and keeping the price of oil so high; getting us into fighting wars over there and occupying other people’s countries and etc.

    C.) That at least a huge if not total part of the solution is thus simple: Radically change our policies in the Middle East, period. Simply recognize that the reason we have persisted in our present policies is because of deeply crazy politicians who love conflict, those who love getting reelected by waving the flag, and those corrupted by special and indeed even foreign interests which are benefitting from those policies at the gigantic expense of the rest of this country.

  7. First they came for the Muslims, but I did not speak out because I am not a Muslim …

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Philip Giraldi Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
A Modern Guernica Enabled by Washington
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
But is it even a friend?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation.