Friday, October 8, 2010

Spoilsports say President doesn't have authority to execute citizens without charge or trial

my pimped pic!

In a move apparently designed to take all the fun out of the Executive Office, The Center For Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union today filed a brief in federal court. It responded to the Obama administration's claim that no court should be able to limit the executive's authority to use lethal force against U.S. citizens if the executive has unilaterally determined that those people pose a threat to the nation. It seems that these two spoilsport groups had the nerve to challenge the government's claimed authority to carry out targeted killings of U.S. citizens outside the context of armed conflict who do not pose an imminent threat. I guess some certain people must not even trust the government!


"If the government's arguments were accepted, the current administration and every future administration would have unreviewable authority to carry out targeted killings of Americans deemed to be enemies of the state," said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU. "While that power would be limited to contexts of armed conflict, the government has argued that the armed conflict against al Qaeda extends everywhere, indefinitely. This is an extraordinary and unprecedented claim, and one that we urge the courts to reject unequivocally. The courts have a crucial role to play in ensuring that the government's counterterrorism policies are consistent with the Constitution."  
The groups responded specifically to the government's claim that the executive's targeted killing authority is a "political question" that should not be subject to judicial review and to its claim that litigation of the case would require the disclosure of state secrets.
"While the administration has publicly declared global war powers to target and kill U.S. citizens and others wherever they may be, when it comes time to defend and explain its breathtaking claims in court, the administration dodges the issue and raises the specter of national security to persuade the court that it should not – indeed, cannot – inquire further, and to trust the executive," said CCR attorney Pardiss Kebriaei. "The court should reject the notion that it has no role in determining the constitutional rights of a U.S. citizen and in defining the constitutional parameters of the president's asserted power."
For more information on the case, including fact sheets and legal papers, visit:www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings and www.aclu.org/targetedkillings.
-----------
Photo caption: Whoops! Billie, distracted while the posing for the photo shot, failed to notice that the executive unilaterally determined that she posed a threat to the nation! (Pay better attention next time, Billie. You could be the target of something more than a photo shot.) 

8 comments:

Beach Bum said...

...two spoilsport groups had the nerve to challenge the government's claimed authority to carry out targeted killings of U.S. citizens...

Of course some will say the ultimate remedy for such groups is to declare them a threat to the safety of the country. This a very slippery slope and the "highly educated" types in Washington are as usual not thinking this through.

Throw in the assorted Lipton and Tetly inspired Marching Morons full of rage and Beckian slogans and things could get really ugly if another 9/11 occurs.

Border Explorer said...

Ouch. Where's Joe McCarthy when we need him?? I bet that the ACLU and CCR both receive their share of threats for having the nerve to challenge the federal government's "right" to execute any of us (without bothering with a court's interference). Hope everyone notices that my tongue is firmly inserted into my cheek when I call them "spoilsport!"

Honestly, where is the outrage on this issue, Beach Bum? Maybe we need to enlist the Tea Party. If they want to complain about Big Government they can start with this issue.

Anyway, thanks for caring. Things are ugly already, hate to think of uglier--but you're right.

okjimm said...

Ha! I think you are a threat! You best be careful! Some Walmart shopper could run you over whilst talking on their cell phone! I believe Walmart is a subversive organization.

Border Explorer said...

Omygosh, do be careful. Saying something like that against Walmart could get you on "the list!"

Sherry said...

When all is said and done, there is but a inch between the two parties. It continues to disgust me, and I continue to wonder if there is a damn thing one can do about it. I'm with Aristotle...let me have the philospher king !

Thomas said...

Of all the disappointments the new administration has given me, the biggest is Obama's record on human rights.

He doesn't seem to think we should have any.

a211423 said...

The public has a short memory. Public outcry over Ruby Ridge and the subsequent Waco Siege involving many of the same agencies and even same personnel fueled the widening of the militia movement. To answer public questions about Ruby Ridge, the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information held a total of fourteen days of hearings between September 6 and October 19, 1995 and subsequently issued a report calling for reforms in federal law enforcement to prevent a repeat of Ruby Ridge and to restore public confidence in federal law.

These events were in the recent past in the 1990's. It appears as a nation we are "incident driven." The waves of more or less government are fickle at times. Thank heavens we have entities like the ACLU and CCR to keep vigilant watch on our freedoms.

Dave Dubya said...

As the song goes, "We are all outlaws in the eyes of America." All they have to do is say so.

Jefferson Airplane couldn't have said it better.