A secret White House panel is now tasked with deciding which Americans to add to the “kill list” reports Reuters today. There is no judicial review, all actions are by executive fiat and no one really knows who the members of the “committee” are. The president of the United States now has sole authority to decide who its enemies are without recourse to the courts or the legislature.

The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

So, let’s be clear: this is all executive branch. There is absolutely no judicial review? That’s clearly unconstitutional on its face.

Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself.

The first justification above defines the crux of the issue, is the AUMF legitimately applicable to Yemen in general and Awlaki in particular? If we are at war and the AUMF is applicable in Yemen then this was a legal killing? Reasonable people can disagree on this point. But knowing what I know of the AUMF from 2001 I don’t think this was legitimate. I think this was an illegal murder of a US citizen who was not on an internationally recognized battlefield. Had this occurred in Afghanistan or Iraq then there would be a very strong case to be made that it was the legitimate killing of a US citizen. We have not included Yemen in the AUMF. I don't find this rationale convincing at all. In a strong confident democracy with a robust tradition of judicial oversight one would expect the government to all such an issue be heard by the courts. But when a case was filed on behalf of Awlaki the Justice Department threw every roadblock imaginable in front of it and it was dismissed.

As Paul Craig Roberts writes:

But what Awlaki did or might have done is beside the point. The US Constitution requires that even the worst murderer cannot be punished until he is convicted in a court of law. When the American Civil Liberties Union challenged in federal court Obama’s assertion that he had the power to order assassinations of American citizens, the Obama Justice (sic) Department argued that Obama’s decision to have Americans murdered was an executive power beyond the reach of the judiciary.

That's not confidence and its not due process. But the Obama Administration still claims there is ample evidence of Awlaki's guilt. Let’s review it:

For instance, one plot in which authorities have said Awlaki was involved Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner on Christmas Day 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underpants.

There is no doubt Abdulmutallab was an admirer or follower of Awlaki, since he admitted that to U.S. investigators. When he appeared in a Detroit courtroom earlier this week for the start of his trial on bomb-plot charges, he proclaimed, "Anwar is alive."

But at the time the White House was considering putting Awlaki on the U.S. target list, intelligence connecting Awlaki specifically to Abdulmutallab and his alleged bomb plot was partial. Officials said at the time the United States had voice intercepts involving a phone known to have been used by Awlaki and someone who they believed, but were not positive, was Abdulmutallab.

Awlaki was also implicated in a case in which a British Airways employee was imprisoned for plotting to blow up a U.S.-bound plane. E-mails retrieved by authorities from the employee's computer showed what an investigator described as " operational contact" between Britain and Yemen.
Authorities believe the contacts were mainly between the U.K.-based suspect and his brother. But there was a strong suspicion Awlaki was at the brother's side when the messages were dispatched. British media reported that in one message, the person on the Yemeni end supposedly said, "Our highest priority is the US ... With the people you have, is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US?"

So, an American citizen was added to the kill list based on a phone call that “might” have been him and based only on the suspicion he was looking over the shoulder of someone who sent an operational message to another plotter? Pretty thin reeds of evidence for the murder of a US citizen if you ask me.
One last thing. The Reuters article says Awlaki is the only American placed on the list:

Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

But this WaPo story from Dana Priest dated January 2010 reports that there are three US citizens on the kill list:

Both the CIA and the JSOC maintain lists of individuals, called "High Value Targets" and "High Value Individuals," whom they seek to kill or capture. The JSOC list includes three Americans, including Aulaqi, whose name was added late last year. As of several months ago, the CIA list included three U.S. citizens, and an intelligence official said that Aulaqi's name has now been added.

All of this, to say the very least, is highly suspect and extraordinarily worrying. The power to declare enemies of the state is now in the hands of the president, whoever he or she happens to be. Glenn Greenwald has more. See also Empty Wheel, adding some interesting thoughts to the whole issue as well.

Think how this power will be abused by a Republican like Rick Perry, or even Mitt Romney?

My apologies to Glen Rice. I worried about him when I heard about him and Sarah Palin, but now that's she's done teasing the entire fapping right wing, at least he got some from her:

It had become obvious that Palin was not going to be a candidate. The reality is that Palin didn't stand a chance, so badly has she squandered her political capital within the Republican party over the past year with cheap stunts, such as an on-again, off-again grandiose national bus tour. Her career in national politics as a candidate is over.

. . . behind the growth of the protests:

So many stupid mistakes in just a few weeks and now this: white shirts beating non-violent protestors. Look, I know someone will make excuses for the police, but at this point, almost a month in there has been no provocation by the protestors. They have been extremely restrained. That simply cannot be denied. At what point do the excusers of this type of police behavior admit reality?

Addendum: A close up of the same action can be seen here. As I see the video it's the police that have created the chaos here. The indiscriminate pepper-spraying and then the batons? Keep being stupid NYPD, you're winning the PR war for the protestors.

Update: Couple of linky-links from today on the Occupy Wall Street protests. First, watch this video from a local NY Fox News reporter. It's fascinating. If it is true that some cops, plainclothes that is, were in the crowd and started flashing badges, it's real easy to assume (yes, that is an assumption) they were behind the melee that took place when protestors assumptively (again, unproven assumption) rushed the barricade. For a protest that has been non-violent and exceptionally restrained from the start who are you going to believe? The police?

Second, read the excoriating review of Erin Burnett's new cable TV show. Brutal.

Third: Unions are beginning to join the protestors in ever larger numbers. As documented in this New York Times story I think the Unions are doing it right. They don't seem to be hijacking the protests for their own aims and are learning from the protestors. This is the right way to do it. I'm very pro-union, but the history of union actions in America in the last 40 years has been deplorable.

Finally, many are comparing the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street protests. Not favorable comparisons, either!

You didn’t have to buy Apple products to be indebted to Steve Jobs. Millions of people resented the man – the figure in a black turtle neck sweater and blue jeans who obsessed over corporate secrecy, who built up a cult following of Apple aficionados, who staged product introductions as if they were a manifestation of the Second Coming. Millions of people resented all this about Steve Jobs, but quietly, day by day, they paid homage to him nonetheless.

Do you use a personal computer? That product owes its existence to Steve Jobs more than anybody else. What about a smart phone? A touch screen computer? A new tablet? All of these products came from his imagination, or better said – from the collective imagination of the teams of people working for him. These people were creative, but it takes a special form of genius to inspire creative people to work towards a common goal.

. . . currently marching on Wall Street itself. Word coming in from twitter and other places is that the NYPD is pepper-spraying lots of folks and there are lots of arrests. There are also rumors of agitators in the crowds wearing boots that resemble those NYPD wears. Of course, the cops would never do that would they?

Plainclothes cops joined the protests until they didn't.

More as it comes in.

I finished the book on Quanah Parker today. I don't have much to say about "Empire of the Summer Moon," other than that you should read it. If you want to better understand some of the pathologies afflicting Texas you can do no better than reading it and also Larry McMurtry's short non-fiction book, "In a Narrow Grave."

(oops, a day early)

Y'know, normally I'd be all behind my party and stuff, but here's one time they ought to grow a backbone:

Senate Democrats are scrambling to rewrite portions of President Barack Obama's jobs bill, even as Obama tries to blame Republicans for Congress' failure to act.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell moved to call the president's bluff Tuesday by pushing for a quick Senate vote on the bill, but Democratic leader Harry Reid derailed the effort as all sides maneuvered for position in a potentially defining battle in the 2012 presidential campaign.[...]

. . . thing for Elizabeth Warren to say last night. On balance she'll be better than Scott Brown if elected, but I don't live in Massachusetts so I can't really say what her chances are.

As for the drug war stuff? Well, she is from Oklahoma, which would explain that. Doesn't excuse it but it does explain it. Speaking of drug war stuff: did you guys and gals see the story about the pizza delivery guy who ratted out a pot smoker in Colorado?

. . . in the morning is a good thing.

BofA May Face Fraud Claims for Defective Loans

U.S. and New York Sue Bank of New York Mellon Over Foreign Exchange Fees

This is why we can't have nice things: we can't even talk about them without our corporate overlords overruling us.

Now, this is no knock on President Obama. I think he's done a good job in office, especially given the mess he was left with: he's passed some signature legislation that will matter for decades in the progressive agenda.

I think he could have done more, but that's a personal opinion.

And I think he's been hammered hard from the right for being competent. The grand machine that somehow tarred a decorated war hero as a coward and fraud is not silent, and has had a big hand in smearing the President's image.

So while his re-election should be a cakewalk, it's not. His approval ratings have sunk, largely because of the appearance of ineffectuality, summoned in large part by a Congress that is lazy and cowardly.

. . . are great news for those who oppose Rick Perry's bid for president. First, he's slipping in the polls. Now, polls this early in the race don't mean jack shit. Iowa and New Hampshire are what matter, but still: it's good to see him falling from immanent savior-hood of the Republicans to all too human showing an almost Herodotean hubris.

Second, the attack-line on Perry that he is a racist is good to see as well. First was his hunting ranch name and now this. Don't for a minute count Perry out, but unless he starts dialing back his extremist rhetoric he's toast.

Seriously, it's a great quote. Go read more here.

. . . is cool!

. . . always an "Other," usually brown skinned with names very different from the Euro-descended mainstream.

Make no mistake: Andrew Ross Sorkin is Wall Street's paid hack at the New York Times.

As I watched a police video of the Brooklyn Bridge "police trap" (See Sean Paul's Story)I instantly found myself wondering if I were watching agent provocateurs in action? Then what to my surprise but a few minutes later I read in the Guardian the same claim. Damn I'm good! :)

"Provocateurs" were responsible for leading Saturday's Brooklyn Bridge march into illegal territory, leading to hundreds of arrests, Occupy Wall Street organisers have told the Guardian.

Karen McVeigh writes from Wall Street:

Karen McVeigh

After criticisms that some of the protesters were engaging in illegal protests, such as the 700 arrested on Saturday, organizers at Occupy Wall street said that they were seeking to identify provocateurs.

Christopher Longenecker head of march planning and tactics, said marches were organized by committees with several people trained as 'pace-keepers' to ensure they are legal and safe.

He accused the police of allowing a situation to develop on Saturday's march where provocateurs led hundreds to engage in illegal protest on the road.

"We dont do illegal actions," Longenecker said. "Pace-keepers are scattered throughout
marches, including the one on Saturday. One of the pace-keepers was standing between the march andthe highway and she was yelling as loud as possible that what was on the road was an illegal autonomous unplanned action [my bolding] – that the legal route was over the walkway and they weren't supposed to take the highway."

"Normally the police block off the highway and cross streets to keep us safe but they didn't on Saturday. There was a heavy police presence on the Brooklyn side of the bridge but not on the Manhattan side. They created the situatuon for provocateurs to lead people onto the highway."

Shown video pictures of those people who appeared to be leading protesters onto the highway – which is illegal in NY – he said he did not recognize them.

Thorin Caristo, one of OWS media spokesmen, said that they were working through the videos to identify provocateurs.

"They have been pointed out as provocateurs in our midst who are trying to mislead the group.

"We are a really open democracy here. Saturdays situation happened really quick and showed the vulnerability of a group that has no leaders."

And as a blast from the past 60's/70's struggle, I found myself reading about the same struggles with sexsim within our side. Melissa Gira Grant talks about the "images of brogressivism and manarchism that have dominated"

Here is one by Gwendolyn Brooks. It was published in 1960. [N.B. 7pm 10/4: I've corrected this from my erroneously attributing it to June Jordan, who wrote many great poems but not this one. I'm sorry about that.]

The Pool Players.
Seven at the Golden Shovel.

We real cool. We
Left school. We

Lurk late. We
Strike straight. We

Sing sin. We
Thin gin. We

Jazz June. We
Die soon.

– Gwendolyn Brooks

The Brunette and I got very lucky this evening with this guy:

It's not every night you get to see an owl!

I kind of like this latest wrinkle in the Popular People's Liberation Front of Judea:

Protesters speaking out against corporate greed and other issues in New York City are dressing as corporate zombies and greeting Wall Street workers as they head into the office.

Patrick Bruner, a spokesman for the group, says Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are being urged to dress in business wear with white faces and blood, and will march while eating monopoly money. He says financial workers should see them "reflecting the metaphor of their actions."

It is, of course, a most excellent point to make with respect to the people who are responsible for the mess we are in, and have been for thirty-odd years.

Obama: A disaster for civil liberties

'Retirement Heist': How Firms Trimmed Pensions

Understanding the Theory Behind Occupy Wall Street’s Approach

"W.G. Sebald the novelist exposed Germany’s culture of silence about its Nazi past. Sebald the professor took aim at the deterioration of academic culture."

New pursuit of Schrödinger’s cat

The Rick Perry Hustle by Larry McMurtry

What are you reading?

I am no ethical paragon. I've made countless boneheaded mistakes in my life and I've owned up to them and accepted responsibility for my actions. But one thing I learned early on in life is that even the appearance of a conflict of interest is something to be avoided at all costs. Just the appearance can destroy someone's credibility and cause an abrupt loss of trust. Why the New York Times cannot see this is really beyond me.

. . . on the Market Place Morning Report I heard them repeat and utterly mind-blowing statistic: student loan debt was now higher than credit cards, weighing in at $830 billion. (The story isn't on the site, but it can be heard towards the end of the eight minute show.)

The student loan debt was brought up and specifically linked to the Occupy Wall Street Protests, as it damn well should be. If there was one thing I would fight for if I was a twenty-something it would be this: a complete credit strike. I'd create a campaign and set a date where all students across the country recently graduated and paying student loans stopped paying. The sum of student debt is an outrageous, feudal, rentier-society fact that is one of the key aspects holding our economy back. It's parasitical.

Just walk away. That's what I'd do.

. . . on the changing story of the Brooklyn Bridge as reported by the New York Times. All I have to say is this: the story was reported by the New York Time's City Room Blog. As blogs are superb for live blogging and running updates why does the Times feel it necessary to go back and change the entire post, instead of, you know, just adding updates? I personally think its borderline unethical to go back and change the body of a post for meaning (edits for coherence and grammar and spelling are okay). I guess those quaint rules only apply to pajama clad bloggers. Regardless, give the story a read and tell me what you think.