Last week a remarkable story was broken about the president’s directive to assassinate a citizen, and there has been a troubling silence about it from nearly all the major players.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post
The revelation last week that the president authorized the assassination of a US citizen created a surprisingly small splash. I try not to engage in speculative “imagine if” games, but if the president had done such a thing in 2005 it is hard to think there would not have been near apoplexy on the left. It is a nakedly thuggish act, and I can easily envision pictures like this with the faces of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales superimposed on them. It would have raised an enormous outcry.
Writing on the relative quiet from liberals Avedon Carol wrote “early on when people asked, ‘Would you rather McCain had won?’ someone said, ‘At least then you’d know you were in a fight.'” Do progressives truly care that the president has made such an expansive claim? Do they realize that their silence does not just make them look hypocritical, but will completely cripple any argument they make against a future Republican president who does anything even remotely that provocative? Conservatives are already happily batting around the idea and soberly debating the pluses and minuses of executive hit squads. Some on the right are already gleefully noting the apparent abandonment of principle among Democrats and their supporters.
The response from the right has been largely muted, though. In a way it makes sense that all sides would rather the issue go away, because it does not run on established political fault lines. Democrats do not want to take a hard line against a Democratic president; they already have enough of a self-destruct narrative to want to avoid high level internecine conflict.
Republicans, meanwhile, would have an equally hard time coming out forcefully against the president. Aside from the fact that Obama’s actions are very much in the strong, decisive and brutal approach towards foreign enemies that they seem to gravitate to naturally, they have to know any investigation would likely reach back into the Bush years very quickly, a chapter in their history they would just as soon not revisit.
Still, this is an election year, and even though their numbers look good right now that may just be a mirage. If they base their electoral strategy on reflexive obstructionism and pandering to the base (neither of which, you’ll note, has anything to do with addressing the problems facing America) it is hard to see how they sustain any kind of momentum through campaign season. They might get some traction running against health care, though, particularly if voters do not see enough meaningful, tangible benefits before election day.
(I cringe whenever I hear Democratic leaders talk about the need to educate voters on the new law; aside from the whiff of elitism it carries – which has been a useful club to beat them with in the past – it raises the question of why the huge reform they are touting cannot be directly felt. If it is so great, why does it have to be sold? Just step back and let people begin enjoying the wonderfulness!)
The GOP seems determined to not get any advantage whatsoever on financial reform, however. On what may the the biggest issue of all – unemployment – there is radio silence from the party. Presumably they just want for us to wait for the invisible hand to stop giving us the finger and start working its magic again. Democrats may not have a much greater sense of urgency than that, but the minority party needs to distinguish itself if it hopes to not remain the minority.
Executive power may not be a sexy peg for Republicans to hang their hats on, but since they are already ceding the most popular issues to the Democrats, they may as well make as much hay on this one as possible. The Democrats’ refusal to stand up to Obama is depressing but not really surprising. It would be nice to see them stand on principle and to put institutional obligations over party objectives. That most likely is not in the cards, though. The Republicans’ reluctance to make this an issue is a little more surprising. At least, it is surprising to the extent that I am still amazed to see a major political party continue to show no instinct for self-preservation.
What Obama has done is a dangerous and outrageous precedent. One of the reasons the GOP has been unable to sway the public for the past year is because it is clearly lying on big issues like health care and financial reform. If it directed that same energy and persistence in the service of truth it might start to bring the electorate along, provided it has retained some vestigial interest in such a thing.
.
A bit late after the media picked up on this story two weeks ago …
Osama Bin Laden is holed up in AfPak region for conspiracy in deadly attacks of 9/11 and East African Embassy bombings. Anwar al-Awlaki is holed up in Yemen mountains, he won’t be traveling abroad, he played his game in Fort Hood killings and attempted bombing of Nortwestern airliner on Christmas day. The only message these two deserve is to be delivered by drone. These two are exceptions to the rule.
● FBI’s Most Wanted
● Delta Flight 253 and Intelligence Watch List
● A Soldier of Allah … Nidal Hasan
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Apoplexy if Bush had done it, yes. But most folks around here would rather you didn’t shine too much of a light on these things.
We used to say that the Republicans wouldn’t condemn Bush if he barbecued babies in the Rose Garden. Unfortunately, many Democrats will support anything President Obama does.
If a future Republican uses this precedent to have a left-leaning activist executed the folks on this blog will go bananas.
C’mon.
A “debate” needs at least two sides.
We really only have two sides here. The two-party system. Remember? Those who are not an integral part of that system do not get to debate…not effectively, anyway. Not so’s anyone who isn’t really tuned in to what is up here in the United States of Omertica would notice, anyway. The corporate owned media…the same corps that own the government and both parties…do not permit any sort of effective three-dimensional debate. Once things go into three dimensions they are harder to control. They develop mass and thus inertial power that is hard to stop or start.
Stick drawings, however?
Easy.
All’s you need is an eraser.
OK…two sides.
Ratpublicans and DemRats.
Now…it is a given that in a two-party system the party that is in power does not “debate” the actions of its representatives. Not publicly, anyway. Why? Because that would cause it to lose votes.
OK. This covert ops system of warfare is favored by the RatPublicans. It is their modus operandi up and down the line, so they are certainly not going to “debate” it. There is no “debate” about it as far as they are concerned. Kill ’em all by any means necessary and let God sort ’em out. Since that particular “God” is a Republican…why hell’s bells, Bubba. Ev’ythin’s gonna be A-OK!!! Why kick up some dust?
Now for the Dems.
I repeat:
Lose votes? Lose power. Lose power? Become unable to prosecute the aims of the party. What are those aims? Well, if one is an optimist one might say that they are to gradually improve the woeful economic position of the U.S. at the present time.
By any means necessary.
Intelligent means.
Rational means.
Moral means.
But not so “moral” as to preclude war.
Just lower the body count.
I mean…if we do not fight our enemies, they will indeed defeat us.
The only real choice is how we fight.
And if you do not think that we have “enemies”…why then I suggest that you put on a whole lotta expensive bling and walk unarmed and obviously totally defenseless any night of the week into any gang-dominated neighborhood in this wide world in order to once and forever learn the truth of this particular matter.
And if you are not an optimist?
Then you might say that the aims are to make a whole shitload of money for the (mostly corporate) interests that most control the movers and shakers of said party.
Again…by any means necessary.
Neither of which leaves much room for public debate.
Where is the debate?
Here in the little corners of the universe that have almost no power whatsoever…no power to truly enter into the mass opinion-making system that is unshakeably in place here. (Unshakeably unless some sort of total collapse happens, anyway.)
Have fun debatin’.
It’s a damn good hobby.
Yup.
Later…
AG
.
SANA’A, Yemen (al-Jazeera) – “Anwar al-Awlaki has always been looked at as a preacher rather than a terrorist and shouldn’t be considered as a terrorist unless the Americans have evidence that he has been involved in terrorism,” Abu Bakr al-Qirbi, the Yemeni foreign minister, said.
His announcement came after a powerful Yemeni tribe threatened to use violence against anyone trying to harm al-Awlaki.
In an official statement published after a meeting of tribal leaders, the Al-Awalik tribe, which is active in the Abyan and Shabwa regions that are important al-Qaeda strongholds, said it would “not remain with arms crossed if a hair of Anwar al-Awlaki is touched, or if anyone plots or spies against him”.
“Whoever risks denouncing our son (Awlaki) will be the target of Al-Awalik weapons,” the statement said, and gave warning “against co-operating with the Americans” in the capture or killing of al-Awlaki.
Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world, is beset by serious political and administrative problems.
In addition to the conflict with the regional branch of al-Qaeda, Yemen’s weak central government has struggled to contain separatists in the south and Houthi fighters in the north.
Yemen, a country with U.S. values and democracy
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."