The shooting of Ibragim Todashev: is the lawlessness of Obama's drone policy coming home?

[AdamSmith]

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

[TampaYankee]

Typical overboard left wing wacko rhetoric -- the title that is. This has notihing to do with drones or drone policy or drone operators. Just wacko hyperbole. To imply that Obama's 'lawlessness' (the author's words not mine) has permeated the government law enforcement institutions by osmosis or direct or implied command is just ludicrous self-serving crap.

Are serious questions raised in the article? Most certainly. This needs to be investigated and not white washed. If inappropriate force was used it needs to be determined and those who used it prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law including for whatever crime was committed up to and including capital murder.

In addition, management heads need to roll. The procedures involved in this case seem problematic at best and designed to obscure oversight at the worst. Management either approved or should have known what is going on in their investigation process by their personnel.

I want to see heads roll but to conflate this with the drone program is just too much liberal wacko crap by people with an ax to grind. These people need to keep at least one foot on the ground.

[lookin]

Are serious questions raised in the article? Most certainly. This needs to be investigated and not white washed. If inappropriate force was used it needs to be determined and those who used it prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law including for whatever crime was committed up to and including capital murder.

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.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Yes I was wondering about the guy who got killed... There are many questions to be asked here. I don't know who will allow investigators to stay at one's home for 5 hours (in this case till midnight) without a lawyer present. Is it a common practice to conduct interviews at private homes these days? After he was killed I haven't heard anything else in the news either.

I don't think it's Obama's fault that this happened. I think some people in the government are keep perpetrating these acts and certain conditions in the government facilitate and condone them. To me this isn't so surprising. I have seen so many people who will do anything to get ahead and earn more money to the point they drop their conscience.

[RA1]

Hito-

It is amazing to me that you can easily believe and understand that "underlings" are capable of sinister and grave crimes but their supervisors and bosses, to include the President, are not culpable. Harry S. Truman famously said, the buck stops here, meaning that whatever happened before was still his problem. In other words, even if BO did not direct or condone illegal activities, he is still responsible, at least and mostly to the voters who elected him.

Nixon did not break into the Watergate apartments and business complex and very likely did not direct anyone to do so but he still suffered the consequences thereof. Likely he suggested that such would not be unwelcome. BO has certainly done similar.

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

And who do you think will do these investigations?

TY, I hope this didn't come off as confrontational. I didn't intend it that way when I wrote it but realized, when I read it later that it may have come across that way. I'm sorry if it did.

I really am interested in what you and others think might be done before we find ourselves without legal protections. It's easy to think it could never happen, and I think the odds are against it, but I become less sure with the passing days. That's not a trajectory I'd like to stay on.

Once a state gets used to abusing the rights of foreigners in distant lands, it's almost inevitable it will import the habit

AdamSmith, once again I'm grateful that you find and post these thought-provoking articles. I noticed that many of them come from The Guardian. I bookmarked their site a few months ago and will start reading it more regularly. Sometimes it seems that those outside the U. S. see us more clearly than we see ourselves.

[lookin]

And who do you think will do these investigations?

TY, I hope this didn't come off as confrontational. I didn't intend it that way when I wrote it but realized, when I read it later, that it may have come across that way. I'm sorry if it did.

I really am interested in what you and others think might be done before we find ourselves without legal protections. It's easy to think it could never happen, and I think the odds are against it, but I become less sure with the passing days. This is not a trajectory I'd like to stay on.

Once a state gets used to abusing the rights of foreigners in distant lands, it's almost inevitable it will import the habit

AdamSmith, once again I'm grateful that you find and post these thought-provoking articles. I noticed that many of them come from The Guardian. I bookmarked their site a few months ago and will start reading it more regularly. Sometimes it seems that those outside the U. S. see us more clearly than we see ourselves.

[RA1]

lookin'

When you write something confrontational I likely will jump off the new Mississippi River bridge. Thought provoking, interesting, intriguing, funny or poetic--yes; confrontational - no. I thought you posed an interesting question, one which the Congress is currently trying to determine and that is, when or if to appoint a special prosecutor. Special prosecutors sometimes seem like an ideal solution but they involve a lot of time and money. However, in certain situations, they tend to remove at least some of the "usual" politics.

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

TY, I hope this didn't come off as confrontational. I didn't intend it that way when I wrote it but realized, when I read it later that it may have come across that way. I'm sorry if it did.

I really am interested in what you and others think might be done before we find ourselves without legal protections. It's easy to think it could never happen, and I think the odds are against it, but I become less sure with the passing days. That's not a trajectory I'd like to stay on.

AdamSmith, once again I'm grateful that you find and post these thought-provoking articles. I noticed that many of them come from The Guardian. I bookmarked their site a few months ago and will start reading it more regularly. Sometimes it seems that those outside the U. S. see us more clearly than we see ourselves.

TY, I hope this didn't come off as confrontational. I didn't intend it that way when I wrote it but realized, when I read it later, that it may have come across that way. I'm sorry if it did.

I really am interested in what you and others think might be done before we find ourselves without legal protections. It's easy to think it could never happen, and I think the odds are against it, but I become less sure with the passing days. This is not a trajectory I'd like to stay on.

AdamSmith, once again I'm grateful that you find and post these thought-provoking articles. I noticed that many of them come from The Guardian. I bookmarked their site a few months ago and will start reading it more regularly. Sometimes it seems that those outside the U. S. see us more clearly than we see ourselves.

Do I repeat myself?

Very well then I repeat myself.

[AdamSmith]

...I am large; I contain multitudes.

(Insert favorite image of double penetration here.)

[TampaYankee]

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.

Lookin' you are never confrontational in a personal way, never. Sometimes you do confront a view with logic, reason and fact on your side and a dose of healthy concern for what is right and what is going on. You made me rethink my earlier post and I realize my concern, or better put 'ire', was directed at the author's attempt to conflate (in my head anyway) the drone program with waterboarding, Abu Ghraib, and renditions abuses.

If the point trying to be made is that fast-and-loose procedures used overseas are being adopted or sanctioned for use at home then I'm all for investigation into that as part of this investigation, i.e. wherever it leads. That was happening long before any drone activity was undertaken, in some really serious ways (see prior paragraph).

I do not believe that the majority of drone strikes have been of the fast-and-loose category, if any, and I do believe that it has been an essential tool fighting terrorism to date. I reject trying to hang the fast-and-loose concept around the drone program neck. I also believe that with the major wounding of Al Qaida in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen that time has come to create a more formal process for authorizing the use of drones, now that we are in less of an emergency action/reaction mode. That would include an oversight court to validate the need, in some circumstances.

It is my understanding that all uses of deadly force must be investigated minimally by FBI Internal Affairs investigators or a DOJ Inspector General.

It is also my hope that some of our esteemed media organizations would be chasing this story rather than the nonWatergate Watergate stories that the GOP is trying to sell. This story deserves attention, not only the actions of the individuals directly involved but the policies in place for oversight and execution of these interrogations. Why wasn't this interview taped?

[RA1]

I find it interesting that few "liberals" are willing to even consider the possibility that BO and company might be doing something seriously illegal as well as wrong. I voted for Nixon and thought he did a lot of good things for the country but thought he got off with a "political" resolution for his illegal acts which of course were politically motivated so perhaps justice was largely served. As time has gone by I am thinking Nixon did less for the country than I first supposed. I did not vote for LBJ and have thought he did not do many good things for the country then and I still feel that way.

Just because this post follows one by TY does not mean I am pointing any fingers are him or anyone in particular, just a general observation. BTW, my fingers aren't loaded.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

I find it interesting that few "liberals" are willing to even consider the possibility that BO and company might be doing something seriously illegal as well as wrong.

I tend to agree. And your remark prompts the thought: Wonder if the broad middle ground of voters would have an easier time seeing the dangerous extremism in some of the Obama admin's actions if the opposing party were not so in thrall to its own extremisms at present?

This occurs to me partly in context that even when liberal klaxons like the ACLU sound the alarm, nobody much listens. Think I'll now start a new thread on their 2011 report "A Call to Courage: Reclaiming Our Liberties Ten Years After 9/11," which was briefly reported, then seemed to sink like a stone.

[RA1]

Even stones can be skipped across the water if "thrown" properly. The ACLU isn't perfect but in some sense, it is all we have.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

That is to say: If the Republicans had kept their powder dry for the real targets that now present themselves, they might have stood a chance of starting a serious discussion about it. But they went all crazy over either fairly stupid or entirely imaginary shit, and thus blew their wad on, comparatively, nothing.

[RA1]

I certainly do not disagree. Pols are dangerous and cannot be trusted regardless of party. I know, I know, my "endless" recording.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

In turn I agree, again, with your observation just now and a little bit earlier: If even the ACLU sounding alarms can't wake up a majority of the "liberal" polis, we have fallen sleep with the motor running and have only to wait for the carbon monoxide to fill up the garage.

[AdamSmith]

Further, it occurs that Republicans are a bit stymied in that many of Obama's to me objectionable actions are right in keeping with conservative preference -- maintaining Guantanamo, drone-striking anything that moves, strengthening the police state at home, etc.

("Conservative" as practiced today, needless to add. Not anything that, say, Prescott Bush would recognize. Or even such as Alan Simpson, as he himself remarked the other day; ditto Bob Dole.)

[RA1]

I hate to fall asleep with the motor running. There seems to be no escape from such. However, I do fall asleep with the radio "running" and often hear things that are illuminating.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest hitoallusa]

AS, I think it reached a point where the same game doesn't work any more as it did in the past. Both democrats and republicans need to play new games with new tools and rules. I think it's part of the evolution and people waking up. Good thing is something different will probably emerge in the future.

[TampaYankee]

I find it interesting that few "liberals" are willing to even consider the possibility that BO and company might be doing something seriously illegal as well as wrong.

Best regards,

RA1

It seems to me that more liberal Dems are taking Obama to task in a serious manner than are the GOP. In a serious manner, not in political attack opportunities for raising money or trying to kick dust on Hillary's coat -- all ticky tacky crap, the way they go about it. This has not been lost on some in the press that investigating issues as problem solving is dismissed in favor of scandal mongering, especially in the House and Conservative media.

The Liberal Dems have attacked Obama for the Drone Program, Gitmo status quo, and the unwarranated extension of the Patriot Act and related actions like warrantless email scanning etc. Where has the GOP been chiming in on these purported excesses of power?

[RA1]

Please don't confuse me with someone who thinks the Republicans are "real" conservatives anymore than Democrats are "real" liberals. They are all pols.

Another interesting thing (to me) is that the foreign press is doing a much better job of reporting and following up on many US problems, political, economic and otherwise. Shame on our fourth estate.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

Another interesting thing (to me) is that the foreign press is doing a much better job of reporting and following up on many US problems, political, economic and otherwise. Shame on our fourth estate.

At some business conference I attended where Colin Powell was the celeb keynote speaker, some time after leaving office, he gave several anecdotes to illustrate that other countries fairly often take the U.S.'s ideals, and its position as global defender of them, more seriously than we ourselves tend to, of late.

[RA1]

At some business conference I attended where Colin Powell was the celeb keynote speaker, some time after leaving office, he gave several anecdotes to illustrate that other countries fairly often take the U.S.'s ideals, and its position as global defender of them, more seriously than we ourselves tend to, of late.

An interesting perspective but likely inevitable. To over generalize (no pun intended), after WWii, the US was the only super power, then one of two, now one among lesser equals (at least nuclear power wise and economically, sort of). As the only super power, the "ravished" world looked to us to at least restore and maintain order and was somewhat grateful for foreign aid. Then they gradually "expected" it with little to no cost to them and now they are sometimes contemptuous of whatever we do. The bottom line is some expect us to do much more and some much less. Where is the happy medium? Nowhere, it is a figment.

I used to blame both sides of the situation, meaning those who wanted more and those who wanted less, but I now feel the attitude and morality of the US has changed significantly in that citizens now want both more and less from the same US government. So, now I blame everyone.

Best regards,

RA1