<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">[Chomsky writes]</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">...As for the killings, Obama has sharply
increased the global assassination campaign. While it was initiated
by Bush, it has expanded under Obama and it has included American
citizens, again with bipartisan support and very little criticism
other than some minor criticism because it was an American. But then
again, why should you have the right to assassinate anybody? For
example, suppose Iran was assassinating members of Congress who were
calling for an attack on Iran. Would we think that's fine? That would
be much more justified, but of course we'd see that as an act of war.
The real question is, why assassinate anyone? The government has made
it very clear that the assassinations are personally approved by
Obama and the criteria for assassination are very weak. If a group of
men are seen somewhere by a drone who are, say, loading something
into a truck, and there is some suspicion that maybe they are
militants, then it's fine to kill them and they are regarded as
guilty unless, subsequently, they are shown to be innocent. That's
the wording that the United States used and it is such a gross
violation of fundamental human rights that you can hardly talk about
it.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">The question of due process actually
did arise, since the US does have a constitution and it says that no
person shall be deprived of their rights without due process of law
-- again, this goes back to 13th Century England -- so the question
arose, "What about due process?" The Obama Justice
Department's Attorney General, Eric Holder, explained that there was
due process in these cases because they are discussed first at the
Executive Branch. That's not even a bad joke! The British kings from
the 13th Century would have applauded. "Sure, if we talk about
it, that's due process." And that, again, passed without
controversy.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">In fact, we might ask the same question
about the murder of Osama Bin Laden. Notice I use the term "murder".
When heavily armed elite troops capture a suspect, unarmed and
defenseless, accompanied by his wives, and then shoot him, kill him,
and dump his body into the ocean without an autopsy, that's shear
assassination. Also notice that I said "suspect". The
reason is because of another principle of law, that also goes back to
the 13th Century -- that a man is presumed innocent until proven
guilty. Before that, he's a suspect. In the case of Osama Bin Laden,
the United States had never formally charged him with 9/11 and part
of the reason was that they didn't know that he was responsible. In
fact, eight months after 9/11 and after the most intensive inquiry in
history, the FBI explained that it suspected that the 9/11 plot was
hatched in Afghanistan, (didn't mention Bin Laden) and was
implemented in the United Arab Emirates, Germany, and of course the
United States. That's eight months after the attack and there's
nothing substantive that they've learned since then that does more
than increase the suspicion. My own assumption is that the suspicion
is almost certainly correct, but there's a big difference between
having a very confident belief and showing someone to be guilty. And
even if he's guilty, he was supposed to be apprehended and brought
before a court. That's British and American law going back eight
centuries. He's not supposed to be murdered and have his body dumped
without an autopsy, but support for this is very nearly universal.
Actually, I wrote one of the few critical articles on it and my
article was bitterly condemned by commentators across the spectrum,
including the Left, because the assassination was so obviously just,
since we suspected him of committing a crime against us. And that
tells you something about the significant, I would say, "moral
degeneration" running throughout the whole intellectual class.
And yes, Obama has continued this and in some respects extended it,
but it hardly comes as a surprise.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">The rot is much deeper than that. </p><div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>--CGE</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:55 PM, "E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森" <<a href="mailto:ewj@pigsqq.org">ewj@pigsqq.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">It will get worse before there is any chance that it could get better.<br><br>On 01/03/13 8:39, C. G. Estabrook wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/20487973/judge-us-can-keep-secrets-on-targeted-killings">http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/20487973/judge-us-can-keep-secrets-on-targeted-killings</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>Peace-discuss mailing list<br>Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net<br>https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<br><br><br> <br></blockquote><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Peace-discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<br><br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>