Friday, September 30, 2011

Musings: Questions of Accountability

A steady, welcome rain subdues the morning light as I write this, but my memory is stuck on the moon: a thin, golden crescent illuminating the dark whole, sinking down into a bed of clouds atop Waialeale last evening as a sky choked with stars looked on.

It looks like the U.S. has sunk to another low in the “war on terror” with the reported assassinations by drone strike of two Americans who were never even charged with any crimes. Like all the bad, corrupt leaders we’ve supposedly been trying to topple, our President now has his own secret security force that can take out anyone he deems a threat. In this case, that included U.S-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who anonymous officials say is “believed” to have inspired and plotted attacks on the U.S., and Samir Khan, whose “crime” was apparently publishing a magazine that included advice on how to make bombs and use weapons.

How, really, is this any different than the death squads employed by dictators? How has a nation founded on the rule of law gotten to the place where we can justify assassinations of citizens based on unsubstantiated reports released by unidentified persons? And how can “inspiration,” whether for good or evil, be considered a crime?

I’m not the only one asking such questions as the U.S. uses the convenient excuse of terrorism to adopt its own lawless ways. The Guardian report included condemnatory comments from Ron Paul and a U.S. Constitutional law expert, as well as a link to the statement issued by the ACLU:

The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law. As we've seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts.

"If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the President does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state."


The ACLU previously had filed a lawsuit against Obama on behalf on Awlaki's father to stop the assassination. U.S. District Judge John Bates threw out the lawsuit, saying the father did not have standing and a judge does not have authority to review the president's military decisions. According to an AP report:

But Bates also seemed troubled by the facts of the case, which he wrote raised vital considerations of national security and for military and foreign affairs. For instance, the judge questioned why courts have authority to approve surveillance of Americans overseas but not their killing and whether the president could order an assassination of a citizen without "any form of judicial process whatsoever."

Still, seeing as how Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the others got away with torture, what is the likelihood that Obama will be held accountable for his crimes?

While we’re on the topic of accountability, Councilman Mel Rapozo has filed a complaint with the county’s Board of Ethics. He’s asking for an advisory opinion on whether there’s a conflict of interest in the relationship between the Salary Commission, Boards and Commission’s Administrator John Isobe and Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s administration.

At issue is whether it was proper for Salary Commission Chair Charlie King to direct Isobe to draft a resolution — apparently without concurrence or prior guidance of other commissioners — that reflected the mayor’s “salary-setting objectives,” rather than “independently establishing the basis of its salary-setting decisions in public meetings.”

The complaint states that the Commission’s action creates the appearance that it “is functioning as an ‘arm’ of the Mayor’s Administration” rather than as an independent entity.

Rapozo’s complaint also raises the question of whether it was proper for Isobe to include a pay increase for himself — indeed, he would be the only person to get a raise — in the resolution he drafted for the Salary Commission. The complaint says this creates “the appearance of a conflict of interest in the relationship” between the Salary Commission and the Office of Boards and Commissions.

The complaint is set to be reviewed by the Board at its Oct. 14 meeting.

30 comments:

  1. http://hamilton.usconsulate.gov/loss_of_citizenship.html

    U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:

    Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;
    Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
    Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;
    Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;
    Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
    Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war");
    Conviction for an act of treason.


    U.S. Citizen Services

    Emergency Services
    Passport Information
    Public Services
    Information for Travelers
    Citizenship Issues
    Dual Nationality
    Renunciation
    Loss of Citizenship
    Consular Reports
    Federal Benefits
    Latest ACS News

    Loss of Citizenship


    Causes of Citizenship Loss

    U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:

    Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;
    Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
    Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;
    Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;
    Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
    Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war");
    Conviction for an act of treason.



    The premise that a person intends to retain U.S. citizenship is not applicable when the individual:

    Formally renounces U.S. citizenship before a consular officer;

    Takes a policy level position in a foreign state;

    Is convicted of treason; or

    Performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship.

    I BELIEVE THAT A US CITIZEN TAKING ANY FORM OF ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION HAS INVOLUNTARILY LOST CITIZENSHIP. THEREFORE, NO LEGAL RIGHTS PERTAIN.

    DRONE BOMB THE MOFO INTO LITTLE BITS.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are we officially at war? Did Congress declare war? Why are we spending billions each week killing people that are trying to kill us because we have invaded their country.

    Does the the killing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan.....justify the end? What is the end and what have we accomplished with all the killing?

    Do we live in a better world? Cheaper gasoline?

    Can the CIA kill anyone of us without proper Judge and Jury because they deem us dangerous and a terrorist? (better watch out Joan)

    Is assassination what Jesus teaches? We call ourselves a Christian nation? "Under God...."? Then does killing innocent people with faulty drone bombings justify catching the "bad guys"?

    When will the killing end?

    Dr Shibai

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah- what ever happened to all that cheap oil we traded all that blood for?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Korea wasn't a war...it was a "police action".

    These things happen.

    And besides, Congress supports the current "police action" by continually funding it.

    "War" does not need to be declared anymore.

    I personally like assassination squads authorized by the Prez. It would be nicer if they would use more "surgical strikes" to limit collateral damage, but if you can't you can't.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Amazing isn't it that after millions of years of evolution our only playing card is war? Obama is no son of Hawai'i. All in the name of power and corporate greed. Aue.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sure have a lot of people here playing Judge ,Jury and Executioner....I guess a trial would have been to civilized....America show it's true moral state.

    ReplyDelete
  7. America kills whoever it wants whenever it wants....some call it Democracy in action....I think it is plain wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And what's so wrong about offing a former US citizen (involuntary loss of citizenship once he/she took up with foreign terrorists whether operating in this country or another) who is known or very highly suspected of being part of past, present or future aggression against this country?

    Nothing, that's what.

    He/she no longer is due the rights of an American citizen.

    Most people don't understand that.

    You basically cannot be an American citizen actively working against this country. Such action voids your citizenship. Look it up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for following up with the ethics commission Mel~

    ReplyDelete
  10. No due process before your citizenship is voided? Must be the new and improved version of democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. read the law in the first post's link.

    no due process. it's the law.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "If you are somebody that believes the President of the United States has the power to order your fellow citizens murdered, assassinated, killed without a shred of due process … then you are really declaring yourself to be as pure of an authoritarian as it gets."

    Glenn Greenwald on Democracy Now!
    http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/30/with_death_of_anwar_al_awlaki

    ReplyDelete
  13. Again..."fellow citizens".

    He was not in that category any more. Are you simply refusing to acknowledge the law that applies???

    His actions served to renounce his citizenship and we killed his ass.

    He has/had no recourse as a citizen.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There still has to be a determination made after the person is given due process. Are you saying that the decision could be unilaterally made by a government bureaucrat without any hearing? That would be insane.

    ReplyDelete
  15. That's what I, and the law, are saying. There is no "due process" if a person voluntarily or involuntarily relinquishes his/her citizenship.

    You could go voluntarily to a consulate and state you no longer want to be a US citizen and, POOF!, you're not anymore!

    You could voluntarily perform actions such as take political office in another country and, POOF!, you'not a US citizen anymore.

    You could voluntarily perform actions such as being active in a foreign terrorist organization or in any domentic or foreign act of treason and, POOF!, you're no longer a US citizen.

    Once you're not a citizen anymore, there are no constitutional rights or protections afforded you.

    It's all right here in the link or any others like it by Googling "losing your citizenship".

    http://hamilton.usconsulate.gov/loss_of_citizenship.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. The laws are made by politicians. They are not infallible and in many cases not just. (Remember we had a law where blacks had to use a different entrance, bathroom and sit in the back of the bus).

    The issue is not about law, its about morality. And the Christians with the guns seem to really stretch their bible teachings to include murder whether deserved or not....its not going to make us a better society with killing the good, bad or ugly.

    Dr Shibai

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Bible does support capital punishment, you know.

    ==========

    At Genesis 9:5, 6, God said: “Besides that, your blood of your souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every living creature shall I ask it back; and from the hand of man, from the hand of each one who is his brother, shall I ask back the soul of man. Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image he made man.” So God authorized capital punishment in the case of murderers.

    But what about after the Christian congregation was set up? Well, we know that God authorized human governments to exist, and he called them the superior authorities. In fact, after advising Christians to be obedient to such governmental authorities, the Bible says that such serve as “God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear: for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword; for it is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad.”—Romans 13:1-4.

    Does that mean that governments are authorized even to take the lives of those who commit serious crimes? From the words at 1 Peter 4:15, we would have to conclude, yes. In that passage the apostle exhorted his brothers: “Let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a busybody in other people’s matters.” Did you note, “let none of you suffer as a murderer”? Peter did not suggest that governments had no right to make a murderer suffer for his crime. On the contrary, he indicated that a murderer might rightly receive due punishment. Would that include punishment by death?

    Admittedly, the Roman judicial system was not perfect; nor are human court systems today. Some innocent people back then and today have been convicted and punished. Even Pilate said about Jesus: “I found nothing deserving of death in him; I will therefore chastise and release him.” Yes, even though the governmental authority admitted that Jesus was innocent, this innocent man was executed.—Luke 23:22-25.

    Such injustices did not move Paul or Peter to argue that capital punishment is fundamentally immoral. Rather, God’s thought on the matter is that as long as the superior authorities of Caesar exist, they ‘bear the sword to express wrath upon the ones practicing what is bad.’ That includes applying the sword in the sense of employing capital punishment.

    ===============

    It's amazing how much people wave around "Christian nation" when it suits their purpose and shun the idea in favor of "liberal secularism" (?) when it doesn't.

    Bottom line: God's OK with Obama sending hit squads to kill bad. The fact that their actions have nullified their American citizenship status merely makes moot the arguments of constitutional due process being violated.

    ReplyDelete
  18. except there's no proof he performed any of the acts that would nullify his citizenship. that's where the due process comes in.

    ReplyDelete
  19. He's on video record as a spokesman for a terrorist group. That's proof.

    Nothing else is necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  20. And now the ATF says medical marijuana users cannot own a firearm.

    Yes this government has ceased in serving its people, and like most, is now in the business of subjugating them.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "read the law in the first post's link.

    no due process. it's the law."

    Wow. What happened to the Constitution??? I thought that was the supreme law of the land. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that:

    "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . ."

    So how does one lose his citizenship or his life without due process? Are we like China, Saudi Arabia, the old Soviet Union, Iran, Iraq or any other fucked up repressive country that decides who gets to live and who gets to die in secret? If so, the enemy has won the war. They've gotten us to beat ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Bottom line: God's OK with Obama sending hit squads to kill bad. The fact that their actions have nullified their American citizenship status merely makes moot the arguments of constitutional due process being violated."

    So when can we expect Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest to get the justice they deserve for causing the slaughter of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans?

    ReplyDelete
  23. sounds like Rapozo had them exactly where he wanted them...

    ReplyDelete
  24. "So when can we expect Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest to get the justice they deserve for causing the slaughter of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans?"

    They're citizens! They're legally immune. There is no "due process" that would convict them of anything.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "So how does one lose his citizenship or his life without due process?"

    Your understanding of "due process" is flawed.

    Involuntary loss of citizenship can happen based on verified acts as defined in that law.

    "Verified" includes being seen on video as representing a foreign terrorist organization.

    Justice has been served on a non-citizen with no further rights under the Constitution...with a drone.

    I like it. I love it. I want more of it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anwar al-Awlaki was still an American citizen when he was executed. He was not a "former citizen" or "non-citizen".

    ReplyDelete
  27. And how do you reconcile that belief with the laws I cited at the start of this thread?

    http://hamilton.usconsulate.gov/loss_of_citizenship.html

    How do you position his public actions as anything but...

    "...an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship."

    as stated in that law?

    In a bit of a stretch, it could also be said that he had entered and served...

    "...in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S."

    The stretch is defining major foreign terrorist organizations as "forces of a foreign state"...close enough for me, the Prez and most others.

    At any rate, he deserved, citizen or not, to have his ass blown away. There was no doubt whatsoever that he was engaging in activities against the national interests which involved violence.

    Nobody is mourning his loss, and I hope he is soon joined by many others.

    ReplyDelete
  28. At any rate, he deserved, citizen or not, to have his ass blown away. There was no doubt whatsoever that he was engaging in activities against the national interests which involved violence.

    No he didn't and yes there was and no matter how times you try claim otherwise it ain't gonna change those two facts.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yes, you can lose your citizenship, but only after you are given due
    process. The US acknowledged that Anwar al-Awlaki was a citizen when they executed him. Look it up. It's been in nearly every article and newscast since the announcement was made.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Their not facts. Their opinions, and not universally shared.

    It's moot anyway. He's worm meat. Good riddance to his and all his kind.

    Ant THAT is an extremely popular opinion...one that could propel a politician to higher office, I suspect.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.