"The Most Radical Power a Government Can Seize"
The New York Times revealed this week that President Obama personally oversees a "secret kill list" containing the names and photos of individuals targeted for assassination in the U.S. drone war. According to the Times, Obama signs off on every targeted killing in Yemen and Somalia and the more complex or risky strikes in Pakistan. Individuals on the list include U.S. citizens, as well teenage girls as young as 17 years old. "The President of the United States believes he has the power to order people killed — in total secrecy, without any due process, without transparency or oversight of any kind," says Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional law attorney and political and legal blogger for Salon.com. "I really do believe it’s literally the most radical power that a government and president can seize, and yet the Obama administration has seized [it] and exercised it aggressively with little controversy."
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Glenn, I want ask you about another subject. On Tuesday, the New York Times published a major exposé about how President Obama personally oversees a "secret kill list" containing the names and photos and of individuals targeted for assassination in the U.S. drone war. According to the Times, Obama signs off on every targeted killing in Yemen and Somalia and the more complex or risky strikes in Pakistan. Individuals on the list include U.S. citizens as well as teenage girls as young as 17 years old. Glenn, can you comment on that?
GLENN GREENWALD: Well we, of course don’t imply that the President of the United States believes that he has the power to order people to killed — assasinated — in total secrecy, without any due process, without transparency or oversight of any kind. I really do believe it’s literally the most radical power that a government and a President can seize, and yet the Obama administration has seized this power and exercised it aggressively with very little controversy. What the New York Times article does is it adds some important, though very disturbing details. Probably the most disturbing of which is that one of the reasons why the Obama administration runs around claiming that the casualties of civilians are so low from their drone attacks, which everyone knows is false, is because they have redefined what a militant is. A militant in the eyes of the Obama administration formally means any male of fighting age, presumably 18 to 40, who is in a strike zone of a missile. So, if the U.S. shoots a missile or detonates a bomb by drone or aircraft and kills eight or a dozen or two dozen people without even knowing whom they have killed or anything about them, they will immediately label any male of a certain age a militant by virtue of their proximity to that scene.
What the New York Times article said, was that the rationale for this is that they believe that anybody who is even near a terrorist or any terrorist activity is "Probably up to no good." Ironically, that is, as Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News pointed out, the exact phrase that George Zimmerman used when describing Trayvon Martin to the 9-1-1 call, that he must be up to no good. The sort of suspicion, that even though we don’t know anything about somebody, the mere happenstance of where they are or what they’re doing entitles us not just to harbor a suspicion about them, but to kill them. And it is amazing that American media outlets continue to use the word "militant" to describe people are killed by American drones without knowing their identity, even though we now know that the Obama administration uses that word in a incredibly deceitful and propagandistic way. And the fact that Obama, himself, is sitting at the top of this pyramid, making decisions about life and death — issuing death sentences without a shred of oversight or transparency, really ought to be provoking widespread outrage, and yet with the exception of a few circles and factions it really isn’t.
AMY GOODMAN: And your response to William Daley, the White House Chief of staff and the Times saying that called the decision to strike the U.S. born cleric Anwar Awlaki and easy one?
GLENN GREENWALD: Well, this is why I wrote yesterday, I think one of the things that the New York Times article did was shed light on President Obama’s character. We can talk a lot about his policies, and that usually is what’s most important, and we’ve known that he’s has been embracing these radical theories of executive power that even George Bush’s former former CIA and NSA chief General Michael Haden has lavishly praised and other Bush officials are over the moon about in terms of President Obama endorsing them. So, we know his policies have been extremist and radical, but here you have one of the most controversial things that a president can do — ordering an American citizen assassinated by the CIA in total secrecy with no due process, never been charged with a crime, even though they could have charged him if they really had evidence as they claim, that he was guilty of plotting terrorist attacks. Instead of charging him, they simply secretly ordered his assassination, and it turns out there was no struggling in terms of the difficult constitutional and ethical and legal issues this a obviously presents. According to the President’s own aides, they’re boasting to the New York Times that he has declared that this was an "Easy" decision, not anything that he struggled with, something that he made quite easily. So, we find out that not only is exercising this radical power, he is not even having any struggles with conscience or constitutional questions or legal or intellectual quandaries about it. It’s something that his national-security adviser, Tom Donilon, also bragged to the New York Times about. It shows how "Comfortable" he is using force, even against American citizens. That I think reflects really on the type of person that occupies the Oval Office.
AMY GOODMAN: You also write, Glenn Greenwald, in this piece, you recommend Aaron David Miller’s piece, the New York Times reporter who does a piece in foreign policy called "Barack O’Romney," that the reason these candidates, Romney and Obama, are not particularly fighting over foreign policy but domestic issues, is because of the broad, Democratic Republican consensus between the Republicans and the Democrats, even as they fight about what is going on in Washington, people talk about no consensus at all. In fact, there’s a serious consensus. Unanimity, in dealing with foreign policy, Glenn.
GLENN GREENWALD: Right, one of the things that progressives and Democrat partisans love to say is that Republicans will never give President Obama credit for anything. This is a complete untruth, it’s a total falsehood. You can go back over the last three years and find instance after instance after instance where not just Republicans, but the furthest right Neocons and national security state officials of the Bush administration have lavished President Obama with praise for his most binding [dog barking] and controversial policies, and I think that represents the kind of bipartisan consensus that he was talking about.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I think you better go, Glenn. I don’t want you to get bit by the dog.
GLENN GREENWALD: I’m sorry about that. Someone just came to the door.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you for being with us. Glenn Greenwald, constitutional law attorney, political and legal blogger for Salon.com, actually speaking to us from Brazil.
|< Prev||Next >|
Other articles in Analysis
Two, One- No State 23 May 2013
Educational Apartheid & Social Inequity 22 May 2013
America Honors Its Worst 19 May 2013
65 Years of Palestinian Nakba 18 May 2013
LGBTQ exclusion of anti-capitalism 16 May 2013
Buckling to Bigotry 14 May 2013
|Timothy V. Gatto|