Leaderboard

The shooting of Ibragim Todashev: is the lawlessness of Obama's drone policy coming home?Once a state gets used to abusing the rights of foreigners in distant lands, it's almost inevitable it will import the habit George Monbiot The Guardian, Monday 3 June 2013 15.50 EDT Did the FBI execute Ibragim Todashev? He appears to have been shot seven times while being interviewed at home in Orlando, Florida, about his connection to one of the Boston bombing suspects. Among the shots was the assassin's hallmark: a bullet to the back of the head. What kind of an interview was it? An irregular one. There was no lawyer present. It was not recorded. By the time Todashev was shot, he had apparently been interrogated by three agents for five hours. And then? Who knows? First, we were told, he lunged at them with a knife. How he acquired it, five hours into a police interview, was not explained. How he posed such a threat while recovering from a knee operation also remains perplexing. At first he drew the knife while being interviewed. Then he acquired it during a break from the interview. Then it ceased to be a knife and became a sword, then a pipe, then a metal pole, then a broomstick, then a table, then a chair. In one account all the agents were in the room at the time of the attack; in another, all but one had mysteriously departed, leaving the remaining officer to face his assailant alone. If – and it remains a big if – this was an extrajudicial execution, it was one of hundreds commissioned by US agencies since Barack Obama first took office. The difference in this case is that it took place on American soil. Elsewhere, suspects are bumped off without even the right to the lawyerless interview Ibragim Todashev was given. In his speech two days after Todashev was killed, President Obama maintained that "our commitment to constitutional principles has weathered every war". But he failed to explain which constitutional principles permit him to authorise the killing of people in nations with which the US is not at war. When his attorney general, Eric Holder, tried to do so last year, he got himself into a terrible mess, ending with the extraordinary claim that "'due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same … the constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process". So what is due process if it doesn't involve the courts? Whatever the president says it is? Er, yes. In the same speech Obama admitted for the first time that four American citizens have been killed by US drone strikes in other countries. In the next sentence, he said: "I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any US citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process." This suggests he believes that the legal rights of those four people had been respected before they were killed. Given that they might not even have known that they were accused of the alleged crimes for which they were executed, that they had no opportunities to contest the charges, let alone be granted judge or jury, this suggests that the former law professor's interpretation of constitutional rights is somewhat elastic. If Obama and his nameless advisers say someone is a terrorist, he stands convicted and can be put to death. Left hanging in his speech is the implication that non-US citizens may be killed without even the pretence of due process. The many hundreds killed by drone strikes (who, civilian or combatant, retrospectively become terrorists by virtue of having been killed in a US anti-terrorism operation) are afforded no rights even in principle. As the process of decision-making remains secret, as the US government refuses even to acknowledge – let alone to document or investigate – the killing by its drones of people who patently had nothing to do with terrorism or any other known crime, miscarriages of justice are not just a risk emerging from the deployment of the president's kill list. They are an inevitable outcome. Under the Obama doctrine, innocent until proved guilty has mutated to innocent until proved dead. The president made his rejection of habeas corpus and his assumption of a godlike capacity for judgment explicit later in the speech, while discussing another matter. How, he wondered, should the US deal with detainees in Guantánamo Bay "who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted – for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law"? If the evidence has been compromised or is inadmissible, how can he know that they have participated? He can suspect, he can allege, but he cannot know until his suspicion has been tested in a court of law. Global powers have an antisocial habit of bringing their work back home. The British government imported some of the methods it used against its colonial subjects to suppress domestic protests and strikes. Once an administrative class becomes accustomed to treating foreigners as if they have no rights, and once the domestic population broadly accepts their justifications, it is almost inevitable that the habit migrates from one arena into another. If hundreds of people living abroad can be executed by American agents on no more than suspicion, should we be surprised if residents of the United States began to be treated the same way? • A fully referenced version of this article can be found at monbiot.comTwitter: @GeorgeMonbiot http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/03/ibragim-todashev-drones-policy-obama?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-4%20Pixies:Pixies:Position4

NP. Anyone who does not wish to be treated as a sex object (at least periodically) should retire to what my mother "fondly" called the old folks home. Then, they can eat radishes but not necessarily be ravished. Best regards, RA1

And who do you think will do these investigations? So far, I haven't seen anyone lining up to look into, let alone prosecute, these incidents that seem to smack of extralegal death sentences. My take on the article was that the author was concerned that extralegal activities carried out abroad are providing a template for extralegal activities to be carried out at home. As these appear in the newspapers with increasing frequency, but with very little reaction, I think the author can be forgiven a bit of hyperbole. Even then, it sure hasn't been enough to get anyone capable of launching an investigation to actually do so. If we won't so much as investigate, where is the hope that we will prosecute? And, if we won't prosecute, or even investigate, is it such a large step to actually condoning these activities? Anyone who rings the bell loudly to call attention to these possibilities gets a pass, from me anyway, for throwing in as much hyperbole as needed to get some attention.

These guys have it mostly wrong IMO. I grant them Cheers, TMTMS, MASH and All in the Family, in no particular order other that on the lower end. I put The West Wing and The Practice (the precursor to Boston Legal) at the top followed by Boston Legal. The Good Wife belongs in the list somewhere. Clearly, such a list is a matter of personal taste. Anything written by David E Kelly or Aaron Sorkin usually is excellent but may not always attract an audience. Such was the TNT master -- Monday Mornings, some terrific writing that explored some very practical medical dilemmas as well as abuses. I haven't seen the Wire and some of the others so I may have missed the boat on those. Deadwood is excellent writing but probably over the head of many. I refer to is as exquisite tedium mired in nastiness. To fill out the list is too hard to draw distinctions between, with at least 20 contenders with strong arguments in their favor. I see Adam Smith mentioned The Carol Burnett Show. Clearly one of the best shows of all time. As far as entertainment probably the the real 'Show of Shows' by a nose. However, as great as the writing may have been much of the show was not written, only sketched and those crazy people picked up the ball, ran all over the field and always crossed the goal line for a touchdown. Thus I reserve the 'greatest writing' for shows at least 90% dependent on the writing.

Frasier, of course, especially during the Joe Keenan years.

I think those three lists cover a lot of outstanding shows. I've seen most but not all (maybe 3/4 of them). My personal favorite has always been the West Wing. The only others that I would proffer that might be worthy of inclusion in an extended list are The Dick Van Dyke Show and Law & Order (the original series). I might even add Taxi, Frasier and Downton Abbey for consideration. A tad early, but Bates Motel may also be worthy, time will tell. Everyone who knows me knows that I am HUGE fan of lists (especially best of and worst of lists).

10 is a good tight number. Lacking the discipline to do that, nonetheless here are a few more that at least I think make it into the top 25 or so, one way or another: The Honeymooners I Love Lucy SCTV Fernwood2night (c'mon) The Carol Burnett Show (special notice to "The Family" skits & spinoff "Mama's Family" show) Star Trek (TNG at least) Sanford & Son (aww please "Naw, these are just the glasses I use to find my glasses" ) The Jack Benny Program Dr. Who Are You Being Served? SNL (the early years) South Park The Simpsons Twin Peaks (maybe?)

I Dont disagree, but its those "spectacle" things that the general str8 public seems to remember and focus on, so I believe its counter-productive in furthering acceptance for our community. However if our community wants to party, Pride is the place to be for it, no doubt... YES, EVERY facet of the Gay community should be present and represented in an enviornment that is SAFE and accepting. I just dont believe the Parade accomplishes that in the bigger scheme of things.

I'm alive and well. Thanks for your concerns. Just haven't had much to post about boys lately. I'll try to post some slurpy photos in the other folder. I'm going through my Asian phase again so you'll have to deal with that...

I want to see Kris Allen and David Archubottomboy in a horizontal duet. Oh hell, let's combine AI with DTWS and have them do a clothingless rumba. Also a competition between Adam and the Gayken and see who can get their ankles further behind their ears, all the while screeching to Soft Cell's Tainted Love. Or something to do with any of the four's taints.