{"id":36251,"date":"2013-05-26T01:09:47","date_gmt":"2013-05-26T00:09:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/breaking-news\/obama-updates-drone-war-policy-due-process-still-not-included-2\/36251\/"},"modified":"2013-05-26T01:09:47","modified_gmt":"2013-05-26T00:09:47","slug":"obama-updates-drone-war-policy-due-process-still-not-included-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/breaking-news\/obama-updates-drone-war-policy-due-process-still-not-included-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Obama Updates Drone War Policy, Due Process Still Not Included"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a foreign policy speech at the National Defense University<\/a> on May 23, President Obama set out his \u201ccomprehensive counterterrorism strategy,\u201d including a plan for the future development of the deadly drone war being waged throughout the Middle East and North Africa.<\/p>\n

Pakistani media described the president\u2019s promises to rein in the rain of missiles fired from U.S. drones as too little too late<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The same could be said about Attorney General Eric Holder\u2019s admission<\/a> that four Americans have been assassinated on the order of the president.<\/p>\n

In his address, the president reported that the United States has been \u201cat war for over a decade.\u201d This is an odd statement from a purported law professor who should know that only Congress can declare war<\/a> and no such declaration has been made since the beginning of World War II.<\/p>\n

Undaunted by his lack of constitutional understanding, President Obama went on to admit: \u201cFrom our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions that we are making now will define the type of nation \u2013 and world \u2013 that we leave to our children.\u201d<\/p>\n

This statement certainly qualifies as too little too late and begs the question: What of the decisions of the past twelve years? What message have our decisions sent to our children and to the world? As the president sits in the Oval Office with his advisors and looks over names of people deciding whether or not to order their summary execution, will the rising generation somehow come to view such lethal autocracy as unacceptable? Have the missiles fired from drones killing thousands \u2013 regardless of their nationality \u2013 made the world safer?<\/p>\n

The answer to both questions is no.<\/p>\n

Blowback is a very real consequence of the way consecutive presidential administrations have executed the \u201cWar on Terror.\u201d<\/p>\n

As The New American<\/a><\/em> has chronicled<\/a>, the methods to the mayhem that is the drone war have bred far more enemies than they have eliminated. In fact, the thirst for vengeance created by the viciousness of the use of this deadly remote control force poses a threat not only a clear and present danger, but will likely prove to be a self-perpetuating, multi-generational menace to the safety of many liberty-seeking people worldwide.<\/p>\n

President Obama insists that if the United States does not continue to \u201cdismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us\u201d then these groups will gain new ground \u201cin countries like Libya and Syria.\u201d<\/p>\n

Beyond those foreign outposts of America haters, the president warns of the threat of homegrown terrorists, as well. The president said:<\/p>\n

Whether it\u2019s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history. Deranged or alienated individuals \u2013 often U.S. citizens or legal residents \u2013 can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.In every instance, the response to these purported threats has failed to pass constitutional muster. Ultimately, this will be President Obama\u2019s legacy, regardless of the rhetoric.<\/p>\n

In that regard, though, much<\/a> of the major media<\/a> attention<\/a> to the speech has focused on the shift of responsibility for carrying out the kill orders from the CIA to the Defense Department. That type of coverage amounts to little more than picking the low-hanging fruit of this poisonous tree, when more good could be done by hacking relentlessly at its unconstitutional roots.<\/p>\n

It matters less who pulls the trigger than why the trigger was ordered pulled in the first place. In the case of the United States of America, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution<\/a> mandates that \u201cno person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.\u201d<\/p>\n

This amendment is a protection of a timeless principle of liberty and justice. In fact, due process as a check on monarchical power was included in the Magna Carta of 1215. This list of grievances and demands codified the king\u2019s obligation to obey written laws or be punished by his subjects. Article 39 of the Magna Carta says: \u201cNo freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised [dispossessed] or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u00a8\u00e2\u20ac\u00a8<\/p>\n

Over the years, the Magna Carta was occasionally revised and amended. In 1354, the phrase \u201cdue process of law\u201d appeared for the first time. The Magna Carta as amended in 1354<\/a> says: \u201cNo man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law.\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u00a8\u00e2\u20ac\u00a8 This fundamental restraint on the royal presumption of the power to lop off heads on command was incorporated by our Founders in the Bill of Rights, particularly in the Fifth Amendment.<\/p>\n

President Obama\u2019s nearly daily approval of drone-delivered assassinations is an effrontery to over 650 years of our Anglo-American law\u2019s protection from autocratic decrees of death without due process of law. When any president usurps the power to place names on a kill list and then have those people summarily executed without due process, he places our Republic on a trajectory toward tyranny and government-sponsored terrorism.\u00e2\u20ac\u00a8\u00e2\u20ac\u00a8<\/p>\n

Of course, it would be another matter if those targeted and executed by the president were armed enemy combatants \u2013 they were not. Were these suspected \u201cmilitants\u201d enemy soldiers captured during wartime, they would be necessarily afforded certain rights granted to POWs.<\/p>\n

Those slated for assassination are not allowed any rights \u2013 neither the due process rights given to those accused of crimes nor the rights of fair treatment given to enemies captured on the battlefield. The White House has assumed all power over life and death and created ex nihilo<\/em> a new category of individual \u2013 one deprived of all rights altogether.<\/p>\n

In a memo released earlier this year by the Obama administration<\/a>, the Justice Department insists that such life or death decisions will be handled by \u201can informed, high-level official of the U.S. government.\u201d<\/p>\n

In his response to the president\u2019s policy speech<\/a>, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) referenced this process. “I’m glad the President finally acknowledged that American citizens deserve some form of due process. But I still have concerns over whether flash cards and PowerPoint presentations represent due process; my preference would be to try accused U.S. citizens for treason in a court of law,\u201d Paul said.<\/p>\n

The American Civil Liberties Union echoed that concern when it wrote in its own response<\/a>, \u201cWe continue to disagree fundamentally with the idea that due process requirements can be satisfied without any form of judicial oversight by regular federal courts.\u201d<\/p>\n

Both statements recognize that meetings in the White House \u2013 regardless of how \u201chigh-level\u201d the attendees \u2013 are hardly sufficient to protect the due process rights of Americans. Due process requires that the suspected terrorist \u201cco-belligerent\u201d be charged with a crime, allowed to answer those charges, and defend himself against those charges before an unbiased judge in court.<\/p>\n

The memo argues that such constitutional procedures must be by-passed in the name of national security, arguing that the safety of America is more important than the constitutionally protected rights of one individual. Furthermore, the memo claims that only those who pose an \u201cimminent threat of violent attack against the United States\u201d will be targeted.<\/p>\n

When White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked by a reporter to explain how 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki qualified for government-sanctioned murder according to the guidelines set forth in the memo, Carney was stumped. \u201cI\u2019m not going to talk about individual operations that may or may not have occurred,\u201d he responded.<\/p>\n

Now that the White House has admitted to killing the young al-Awlaki, what clever words will hid this perfidy now?<\/p>\n

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed in October 2011, and to date the Obama administration has never informed the country of any wrongdoing by this teenager, other than being related to a man (his father, Anwar al-Awlaki) who posted on the Internet anti-American videos that allegedly influenced others to commit crimes. A government-sanctioned assassination of such an individual is repugnant to all those who cherish life, liberty, and the due process that protects them.<\/p>\n

An additional denial of due process came from the fact that no known attempt was ever made to capture this young man and take him into U.S. custody.<\/p>\n

Of course, that could be because he might actually have ended up in a court of law if he had been apprehended; and President Obama, a former lawyer, knows that trials can be long, messy, and unpredictable. It is much quicker and cleaner just to launch a missile and kill someone without going through the hassle of due process.<\/p>\n

Curiously, however, and without a hint of irony or sarcasm, President Obama said in his May 23 speech that he has a \u201cstrong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists.\u201d<\/p>\n

Certainly half of that statement is true. The president does have an abiding determination to detain prisoners. The prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba remains open despite his pre-election 2008 promise to shudder it should he become president.<\/p>\n

As for the second half of his sentence, however, the president has repeatedly \u2013 whether himself or through surrogates \u2013 fought to keep accused terrorists out of U.S. courtrooms. And, regardless of his words, his actions testify of his preference for putting names on a kill list then ordering drone strikes to carry out the fatal fiat.<\/p>\n

Finally, at the end of his address, President Obama eloquently called for a \u201crefutation of fear.\u201d Ironically, again, it is the very specter of harm from nameless, faceless \u201cextremists\u201d \u2013 whether \u201chomegrown\u201d or foreign \u2013 that he uses to justify the denial of due process.<\/p>\n

Over and over, President Obama plays the fear card, believing that it trumps our dedication to honoring the Constitution and the timeless principles of liberty and justice that it is meant to preserve.<\/p>\n

When it comes to reaffirming the fundamental right of due process and proclaiming an unswerving commitment to upholding our constitutional values regardless of the threat, \u00a0President Obama’s speech was full of sound and fury signifying nothing.<\/p>\n

Photo of President Obama at the National Defense University: AP Images<\/em><\/sup><\/p>\n

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for<\/em> The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, and the surveillance state. He can be reached at
\n This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
\n .<\/em><\/p>\n

This article originally appeared on: The New American<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In a foreign policy speech at the National Defense University on May 23, President Obama set out his \u201ccomprehensive counterterrorism strategy,\u201d including a plan for the future development of the deadly drone war being waged throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Pakistani media described the president\u2019s promises to rein in the rain of missiles […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[487],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-36251","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-breaking-news"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36251","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36251"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36251\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36251"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36251"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36251"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}