1
1
Obama Wants State-Sponsored Murder Legalized
Legalizing Murder, Inc.
by Stephen Lendman
A previous article discussed Obama's kill list. Another explained his "disposition matrix." Both constitute elevating Murder, Inc. to a higher level.
Obama now wants more. He wants murder legalized. On November 24, The New York Times headlined "Election Spurred a Move to Codify US Drone Policy," saying:
Pre-election, Obama "accelerated work".to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned droned." He wants standards and procedures established.
In other words, he wants murder legalized. Washington designates anti-war/imperial opponents "terrorists." He wants new rules giving him clear authority to murder them.
Israel designates Palestinians wanting to live free from occupation and state terror the same way. Rogue states operate that way.
Obama wants new standards in place. He wants cover for governing illegally. He wants fundamental US and international laws overridden. He wants tyrannical authority.
He wants final say. He wants diktat power to be the last word. He wants to be judge, jury and executioner. He wants it codified and made legal.
Times writer Scott Shane earlier called drone killings an effective "war on terror" policy. He's comfortable about permitting what US and international laws prohibit.
His view differs marginally from Times editorial policy. Last May, The Times headlined "Too Much Power for a President," saying:
Obama thinks "the shadow war on terrorism gives (him) the power to choose targets for assassination, including Americans, without any oversight." That policy "is very troubling."
Times editors don't oppose drone killings. They're wary about one person having diktat power to order them. They're mainly concerned about Americans. Other people matter less. US citizens deserve due process, they said.
Apparently they believe Americans are more equal than others. At the same time, they're concerned about a "perpetual war on terror (permitting) lethal force against anyone" for any reason.
Times policy stopped short of drawing inviolable red lines. Murder is illegal. US and international laws are inviolable. They're clear and unequivocal. Times editors tried having it both ways.
