would not be
unlawful
and therefore
would not violate
the executive
order banning assassination".
In
Holderworld, it is somehow not an assassination to commit a killing that fits
the widely accepted definition of "assassination" as "the murder of a prominent
person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or
political reasons". An
assassination may be prompted by religious, ideological , political, or
military motives"."
You Don't Need Law When There's No Political
Challenge
As
Holder well knows, as does Obama, both being lawyers, there is no clear
constitutional, statutory, court precedent, or other legal grounding for
assassination by drone. The only
basis in law is untested legal argument, some if which remains secret. But as both men know, the assassination
policy has solid grounding in both politics and psychology.
And
so the President framed his counter-terrorism speech with 9/11, which is as
logical and useful as it is exceptional and misleading, telling his audience
falsely but with Humpty Dumpty mastery of words, "And so our nation went to
war."
That
has been the delusional national consensus since 2001, even though it's not war
in any constitutional, historic, or honest sense. But war justifies everything, at least for awhile. And that may be the meaning behind
Obama's speech, a sense that time may be running out on the "nation at war"
meme, and perhaps it's time for the clever leader to get ahead of the politics
and the psychology by at least seeming to change course a little.
The
President acknowledges much of the damage our self-chosen wars have done to us
at home and abroad. He ticks off
government surveillance, torture, secret prisons -- but not renditions. He says, "And in some cases, I believe
we compromised our basic values."
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
