Iraq and Terrorism

Said The Red Queen

by

by Gary Farber

First, we don't kill all the lawyers.  

Let's continue the examination of the lawfulness of the killings of American citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan I began in my post, Off With Their Heads!

(That various other non-citizens, including Muhammad Salme al-Naaj and Abdul-Rahman bin Arfaj, and another several Yemenis, were killed is another debate, but they should not be forgotten, either.)

Consider the justifications presented for these killings:

#1: Did they commit "treason"?  Possibly so!  

Sticking point: the U.S. Constitution says very clearly:  

Section 3 - Treason 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

It's almost as if the drafters of the Constitution considered this!  

Our Constitution specifically defines "treason" and the only way someone can be convicted of it.  As You Know, Bob (everyone), the U.S. Constitution is superior to U.S. laws, which can't violate the Constitution.  So al-Awlaki and Khan can't have been put to death because they committed "treason."  

The President has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.

#2: It was justified to kill them because of their propaganda and speech.  

Unfortunately for this argument, the Constitution also rules it out with the little-known, obscure, First Amendment freedom of speech. 

Let's move on to more serious arguments.

But first let's jump to the White House presenting its official response as press secretary Jay Carney explains, and is questioned by Jake Tapper (!) of ABC News: 


video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player
 

Some quotes: 

TAPPER: You said that al-Awlaki was “demonstrably and provably involved” in operations. Do you plan on demonstrating or proving –

Read more

Off With Their Heads!

by

by Gary Farber

I say we just kill all accused murderers from now on.

Think of the money saved, the deficit, and, of course, the children.

Now that we've established that the courts and Constitution don't matter, let's just jail all the accused criminals, too. Why lose sleep? They're murderers and criminals! The state says so. 

All Presidents need the power to assassinate people simply because they say so. What could go wrong? 

This matters not.

Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings.

Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Read more

Executive Decision

by

GUEST POST by McKinneyTexas, NOT by Gary Farber

First, thanks to Gary Farber for the kind invitation to guest post.  Initially, I'd begun a sort of semi-reflective, Kumbaya piece but then it occurred to me that my role was to introduce of bit of diversity here at ObWi, to provoke thought from the other side of the spectrum.  So, here it is: your dose of provocation:

One glaring fault of the Left-in-Power is its lack of respect for the constitutional process on that most fundamental question of committing the country to war. 

First, under Clinton and then under Obama, US troops were committed to combat operations overseas when no US vital interest was at stake and certainly no attack on US citizens or interests anywhere was imminent.  Neither commitment was subject to public debate, or more importantly, authorized by congress.

Compare this to the much reviled Bush II administration and its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Read more

Self-Evident

by

Guest post by Amezuki, not by Gary Farber

You all know me by a different pseudonym, and I'll reintroduce myself properly later.

But in the meantime, a word from our Founders:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence stands, in my mind, as one of the greatest political documents in history.

Like our Constitution, it stands on the shoulders of many other exalted works, and my opinion is not in any way intended to denigrate those works–but what makes it stand out in my mind is not just the role it had in the birth of our nation, but in the simple, unequivocal and straightforward statements of first principles it contains.

Foremost among these is the well-known passage I quoted above. Its evocative power was such that Martin Luther King, one of the most eloquent speakers and users of language our nation has known, had no need to embellish it further when quoting it, save to correctly note that it was a promise our country had yet to fully honor. "All men are created equal."

Think about that for a moment. All men. You will notice a distinct lack of footnotes, equivocation, qualifications or exceptions to the word "all".

Read more

Don’t Fear The Reaper

by

by Gary Farber

We must talk about the the War Logs of Wikileaks.

The amount of data is staggering.  Key stories abound. 

Let us start with death.

The Guardian's breakdowns include a breakdown of lethal casualties of the Iraq war.  (The New York Times approach is here; we'll get to that.)

America caused this.  It's a map of every Iraqi war-related death documented by the Coalition.

Hooray for freedom.

Read more

Waste Not, Want Not

by

by guest poster Gary Farber.

How much is $50 billion? 

That's how much the president proposes we spend:

[…] It calls for a quick infusion of $50 billion in government spending that
White House officials said could spur job growth as early as next year —
if Congress approves. […]  Central to the plan is the president’s call for an “infrastructure
bank,” which would be run by the government but would pool tax dollars
with private investment, the White House says. […] Specifically, the president wants to rebuild 150,000 miles of road, lay
and maintain 4,000 miles of rail track, restore 150 miles of runways and
advance a next-generation air-traffic control system.

[…]

The White House did not offer a price tag for the full measure or say
how many jobs it would create. If Congress simply reauthorized the
expired transportation bill and accounted for inflation, the new measure
would cost about $350 billion over the next six years. But Mr. Obama
wants to “frontload” the new bill with an additional $50 billion in
initial investment to generate jobs, and vowed it would be “fully paid
for.” The White House is proposing to offset the $50 billion by
eliminating tax breaks and subsidies for the oil and gas industry.

After months of campaigning on the theme that the president’s $787 billion stimulus package was wasteful, Republicans sought Monday to tag the new plan with the stimulus label. The Republican National Committee called it “stimulus déjà vu,” and Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, characterized it as “yet another government stimulus effort.”

Which sounds good to me, if not to you, but we can all agree that we don't want to "waste" money.

Even before the announcement Monday, Republicans were expressing caution.

“It’s important to keep in mind that increased spending — no matter the
method of delivery — is not free,” said Representative Pat Tiberi, an
Ohio Republican who is on a Ways and Means subcommittee that held
hearings on the bank this year. He warned that “federally guaranteed
borrowing and lending could place taxpayers on the hook should the
proposed bank fail.”

Such concern might have come earlier: 

Rebuild iraq money

  • The Department of Defense is unable to account for the use of $8.7
    billion of the $9.1 billion it spent on reconstruction in Iraq.
  • Source: Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (PDF).

Read more

The Most Powerful Lobby in Washington

by

by von I have a policy:  avoid debating Israeli policy via blog.  I have some experience with deeply-contested histories (obliquely referenced in my St. Patrick's Day post, below).  Contested histories are nuancy.  But the blog format isn't long enough, or interactive enough, to allow for any nuance.  Reduced to spurts of 200 or 500 words, everyone becomes a caricature.  And I'm … Read more

How not to spy, by your friends in Al Qaeda

by

by Robert Mackey Mark Mazetti's newest article on the suicide bombing that killed CIA agents in Afghanistan, "U.S. Saw a Path to Qaeda Chiefs Before Bombing, " has this interesting tidbit worth considering: "Mr. Balawi proved to be one of the oddest double agents in the history of espionage, choosing to kill his American contacts at … Read more

Secrets, Iran and a Healthy Skepticism

by

by Robert Mackey First, a quick introduction and greeting. My name is Robert R. Mackey (not to be confused with the Lede author) and I'm an historian and retired US Army officer.  My specialty, oddly enough, is a strange mix of American Civil War history, history of intelligence, and counter-terrorism.  In the past, I've worked … Read more