Tweet
Former press secretary and now Obama re-election campaign adviser Robert Gibbs was asked after the second presidential debate about Obama and how he would defend the “secret kill list” during the foreign policy debate:
ROBERT GIBBS, Obama advisor: This president has taken the fight to Al Qaeda.
LUKE RUDKOWSKI, We Are Change: Does that justify a kill list?
GIBBS: When there are people who are trying to harm us and have pledged to bring terror to our shores, we have taken that fight to them.
RUDKOWSKI: Without due process of law?
GIBBS: We have taken that fight to them.
RUDKOWSKI: Without a court of law, illegally, against the Geneva Conventions…
GIBBS: I think I know where you are on this issue. I am just trying to answer your questions without you doing it. But, if you want to answer my questions…
LUKE: I am just trying to deal with the spin…
Gibbs’ answer was a variation of former President George W. Bush’s we have to fight the terrorists over there so America doesn’t get attacked or have to fight them here in the United States.
Sierra Adamson, also of We Are Change, was able to ask a follow-up question:
ADAMSON: You said it is important for the president to do what needs to be done in terms of members of al Qaeda and people who pose a threat. Do you think that the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki’s son who is an American citizen is justifiable?
GIBBS: I’m not going to get into Anwar al-Awlaki’s son. I know that Anwar al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship…
ADAMSON:…His son was still an American citizen…
GIBBS:…Did great harm to people in this country and was a regional al Qaeda commander hoping to inflict harm and destruction on people that share his religion and others in this country. And…
ADAMSON:…It’s an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he’s underage. He’s a minor.
GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business. [emphasis added]
It is sixteen year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki’s fault that he had a father, who was a Muslim extremist. He should not have been born to this man if he wanted to live to see his seventeen birthday.
Fact is the killing of Al-Awlaki’s son was unlawful and inhumane. The Obama administration has proffered no reasonable justification or explanation for his death. And the American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights have filed a lawsuit challenging his killing:
…Abdulrahman was not engaged in any activity that presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury; nor was he directly participating in hostilities. If he was killed because the government was targeting another individual, his killing was unlawful because, upon information and belief, Defendants authorized and directed the strike without taking legally required measures to avoid harm to him. Even in the context of an armed conflict, the government must comply with the requirements of distinction and proportionality and take all feasible measures to protect bystanders. Upon information and belief, Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi was killed because Defendants failed to take such measures…
Moreover, Anwar Al-Awlaki’s death was not necessarily justified or lawful either. Both the ACLU and CCR challenge the decision to kill him without judicial process:
At the time of the killing, the United States was not engaged in an armed conflict with or within Yemen. Outside the context of armed conflict, both the United States Constitution and international human rights law prohibit the use of lethal force unless, at the time it is applied, lethal force is a last resort to protect against a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. Upon information and belief, Anwar Al-Aulaqi was not engaged in activities that presented such a threat, and the use of lethal force against him was not a last resort. Even in the context of an armed conflict, the law of war cabins the government’s authority to use lethal force and prohibits killing civilians who are not directly participating in hostilities. The concept of “direct participation” requires both a causal and temporal nexus to hostilities. Upon information and belief, Defendants directed and authorized the killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi even though he was not then directly participating in hostilities within the meaning of the law of war.
Gibbs’ answer is another shade of sociopathy. It perhaps is not as bad as Time Magazine contributor and Obama supporter Joe Klein’s latest remarks on “Morning Joe” where he said, “ The bottom line in the end is – Whose 4-year-old get killed? What we’re doing is limiting the possibility that 4-year-olds here will get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror.” It is not necessarily as bad as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Democratic Party leader, claiming she knows nothing about a kill list. However, putting blame on Abdulrahman’s father removes responsibility from the United States and gives the country cover to excuse violating international law or committing a war crime.
38 Comments
Gibbs and other Obama supporters are..well…Arthur Silber lays out what they are. It should also be pointed out that Romney supporters are in the same boat. As is anyone who votes for either of these candidates.
People should understand that when they vote for these people, this — unlawful, extrajudicial murder of anyone, anytime and anywhere in the world based only on the say-so of the executive and his council with no accountability or oversight what so ever — is what they are voting for. Approving of. Supporting.
Read Silber. He gets it: Accomplices to Murder
Democrats and their shills absolutely refuse to acknowledge the due process question, Kevin, if they are even willing to admit that Obama has assassinated quite a number of human beings, many quite innocent of ANY conceivable “threat” to the USA.
That Gibbs talks over and through these reasonable questions, continuing to “spin” dervishly away, suggests that there is no principled difference between the legacy parties, their “endless” war rants and their “bipartisan” intent to make the “one indispensable nation” into an instrument of eternal and violent hegemony.
Too many of the people, the citizens of this nation, insufficiently, if deliberately, uninformed and fear-crazed, by design, will continue to embrace this madness despite the overwhelming opposition to continuing “conventional” war, which is ignored, sneered at, and belittled as cowardly and unpatriotic even as “appeals” to “responsible parenting” are bandied about as excuse and justification for the use of drones.
An honest observer might suggest that Barack Obama puts his daughters at equal risk by the “terms which Gibbs here “elucidates”. Obama, by behaving as a “complete” terrorist is not engaged in “doing” his “business” as a parent.
No doubt that “perspective” will shock and appall … as it properly should, but it will be dismissed as completely “over-the-top” … for the “one indispensable nation” can do no earthly wrong.
Those now in power, in this nation, will not and cannot “come to their senses” … they can (and will) only “double down” and increase the violence and destruction …
Gibbs is an accessory and he damned well knows it.
Obama is a primary instigator, and he also, damned well knows it.
Neither can claim the “honest”, shocked “ignorance” or “innocence” “exhibited” by Debbie Wasser-Schultz when she was asked about the “kill list” …
DW
GM is alive, Bin Laden is dead, and the Constitution is on life support.
Thanks, Kevin, you do great work.
When are they going to add a Recommend button to the front page?
We have no rights and our “freedoms” are an illusion when the government can kill with no oversight.
Imagine the hand-wringing from the Democrats when the next Republican president inherits what Obama keeps expanding. But then, it will be too late. Hell, it’s already too late.
As reprehensible as it is, Joe Klein’s quote is just the unvarnished truth. Obama supporters need to acknowledge that a vote for Obama is, at the very least, an admission that American lives are worth more than others, even the lives of innocent toddlers. That the rules are different for us because we’re . . . well, we’re exceptional.
>
well, its clear this amoral dingbat is not an attorney -
the claim that ‘my illegal action was the fault of the victim’ does not win court cases
in fact, i hear this revealing and crap line of logic all the time from rapists – ‘she was askin’ for it with that short dress’ – yes, Gibbs, i am comparing you to a self-justifying violently criminal assailant
also heard quite often throughout our illustrious human history from the mouths of tyrants as they wipe out ‘undesireable’ sectors of society..
you have a choice in 2012 : choose to not support gleeful at their blood dripping hands child killing careerist sociopaths
‘yes you can’
It’s my understanding that al-Awlaki’s son wasn’t killed because of who he was, but where he was. Some guy sitting at a console in Florida sipping a Coke saw a bunch of youmg men sitting around a campfire in the desert in Yemen and thought, “What the hell — I’ll smoke the bunch of them.”
Anwar al-Awlaki did not receive due process, and was murdered by the U.S. government.
His 15-year-old son did not receive due process and was murdered by the U.S. government.
And a former close adviser to Obama says, “Tough shit.”
Thanks for reminding me why I’m voting for Rocky Anderson, Joe.
The debate last night appeared to be; who could be more like Bush and Obama won.
Arabs don’t vote in numbers in US elections.
Murcan exceptionalists don’t apologize for anything.
Could there be a more crass example, assuming Gibbs speaks for Obama? Someone needs to ask him straight out.
Imagine the American outrage if the UK had routinely ‘droned’ Dublin and its suburbs through the 70′s and 80′s, picking off ‘suspects’ at will.
It is all very sickening.
Nice post. Personally, I would have liked to see a greater reference to Obama’s responsibility, because after all, it’s Obama’s policy. But, I understand the rules have changed at FDL and for some unfathomable reason Obama’s flagrant abuses are not fair game, so all in all – thanks.
Good piece, Kevin.
Thank you, times over, for not being a shoe-shiner.
And, I think there is no doubt that this bloody shit is now fully on Barack Obama’s bar tab.
I just read somewhere a recent poll suggests 90% of liberals will vote for Obama. If this is the case, let ALL Progressive whining cease on Nov.8, 2012, period. Forget Manning t-shirts, forget rallying attempts for reasoned Economic policy, forget money raising attempts to counter those horrid “Extremists” on the right, forget arguing EVERYTHING that calls for reasoned accountability from the Executive Branch and most certainly, forget trying to “nudge” Obama to the left! The ONLY “hope” we’ll have left is to push from day 1 for Elizabeth Warren & Sherrod Brown in 2016.
Mr. Gibbs was spokesman for the coalition of hack labor leaders and conservadems who went all-out to stop Howard Dean in the 2004 primaries. As WH Press Secretary, he said that members of the “professional left” out to be drug-tested.
Gibbs is a factor–not the largest, perhaps, but nonetheless significant–in my decision not to vote for Obama this year and to cut my remaining ties to the Democratic Party.
interesting analogy with Dublin in the seventies… There was however a shoot to kill policy informally instituted and tacitly approved by Thatcher. Quite a scandal in Gibraltar when the SAS were engaged with “taking out” several provisional IRA suspects. Some might argue that targeted assassination has always been the dirty business of Governments, of which drones are just the most disgusting, if logical development.
…X 2
Yeah, I’m aware of Thatcher and Gibraltar. Dublin on the other hand, is the capital of a sovereign state. I’m just pondering Bostonian reaction if, as I say, ‘droning’ had been a constant feature of UK anti-terror work at that time, nonchalantly taking out those they ‘thought’ might be a problem.
One can always identify corruption in that it tries to gain all the power with none of the responsibility.
…should be not in doubt…IOKIYAAD makes Obama doing G.W.Bush/Cheney #3 WH easy tho.Obama likely will win WH again in 11/12 and then we will get ObamaBushCheney Completed.
The Ds and those who back the Ds still at this point do not want to be honest as to what they do/how it is being done and what it opens upon.
IOKIYAAD being used to hide behind while doing it — it is and has become shameless…the Ds should just step aside and down — what is the point to being a D at this point? — but will not– would be politics done too honestly — the Ds and Obama just not that into being honest — and they both like the money politics — lots. 10% get in the money politics what they want with Obama in the WH. The Ds and Obama get the money. Why not go with the money and kick being honest outta the way?
Innocents being killed? Jesus on a stick — IOKIYAAD!! Shut up!! Dammit!! Get in line!! Don’t you see/can’t you see what could happen with Obama not in the WH!?
Actually I do and can. That is the point the Ds do not want to see/know tho.
“. . . unlawful, extrajudicial murder of anyone, anytime and anywhere in the world based only on the say-so of the executive and his council with no accountability or oversight what so ever . . .”
Well said. One of the major reasons why there is no practical difference between Obama and Romney is that both will embrace the Fuehrerprizip, which is the policy of ruling whereby the executive is at once the Law as well as above it. While this governing principle has been played around with to varying degrees in the US for the past 200 years, it has been institutionally solidified since 9/11. This is how we get kill lists, torture, drones assassinations, indefinite detention, illegal wars, etc. It matters not one bit if a Rep or Dem is exercising this power.
Remember not so long ago at FDL when there was a good bit of criticism of Obama for, among other things, murder? Not so much anymore. It is necessary to close ranks in order for one’s team to win. That is what is often at stake, not concern for due process or extrajudicial killing.
“If this is the case, let ALL Progressive whining cease on Nov.8, 2012, period . . .”
And claims of being fooled by the rhetoric and promises of the Blue team’s candidate should go the same way.
Make no mistake: Obama is responsible for escalation in drone attacks and now accepted policy of state-sanctioned murder.
Nah. GW Bush won that debate. All that so many were once against, they are now for…at least as long as it’s Obama in the White House.
It is one of the more extreme examples of political blindness that so many support Obama because they want peace. See War – http://newprogs.org/blog/2011/11/11/wars-under-democraticrepublican-uni-party
Absolutely vile, but not surprising. This is the true face of the Obama administration.
Indeed.
Check TBogg’s recent post and many of the comments that follow. What is abundantly clear is that these folks don’t give a damn about anything so much as having their team’s candidate win, who they insist is so much different from the other team’s candidate even as they exhibit the same cheering for extrajudicial drone murder and contempt for due process as the team they are supposedly competing against. The best proof at FDL that George W won the “debate” and that there is no practical difference between Romney and Obama is the sentiments of TBogg and these commenters.
A truly despicable creature Gibbs is. Ranks up there with, oh, say, Julius Streicher, and Hans Fritzsche as an accomplice either before or after but certainly a propagandist. One who acts as if he agrees with Streicher’s unofficial motto for his tactics: “Something always sticks.”
“The basic method of the Nazi propagandistic activity lay in the false presentation of facts.” Call it “spin” if you will.
That blog is one of the most truly disturbing sources of ‘commentary’ I have ever seen. To the extent it even touches upon any issue other than electoral politics it is riddled with moral vacillations, torturous contortions of logic, baseless & arrogant self-satisfaction rooted in no principle deeper than support for the Democratic Party, and petty authoritarian efforts to bully those who see the system for what it is. Though in regards to all these I state the obvious.
Obama’s miserable presidency will have been worth it if it ends up opening the eyes of the majority to the complete bankruptcy of both parties. To some extent, I believe it has: I have never observed such low enthusiasm, so much soft support for the major candidates, or a general feeling amongst so many people that the outcome is going to decide little. Sure, we’ve seen these things to a lesser degree before. 1996 comes to mind as another instance where the differences between the candidates were academic at best. But that year most of the public was simply unconcerned; they figured things would turn out pretty well regardless. Now, one gets the sense that few people outside of the true believers in both parties believe that things will much improve for them in either case. We may well be about to witness the biggest drop in voter turnout between consecutive presidential elections.
Still, we must realize that the psychological propaganda is deep and pervasive within both Democratic and Republican circles. At this point, both camps rely more on fear and paranoia of the other to attract votes than vision or hope or firmly held belief. This puts them in a precarious position: should the world economy or conditions at home deteriorate too rapidly, people will leave the major parties in droves. If we are to have any hope of moving the discussion back to the realm of sanity, we are going to have to build an alternative vision in the meantime. Anything we could do to support the growth of worker owned businesses, community owned utility companies, the proliferation of community gardens, the reduction of fossil fuel consumption and so on will put us in a position to gain the support of people who are leaving the Republican and Democratic parties en masse. There needs to be a movement that produces some concrete accomplishments and in building it we need to recruit people across a wide spectrum. After reading the inanities of Democratic hacks like TBogg, I am convinced that people with any allegiance to truth & justice would have an easier time making allies of the libertarian-leaning crowd than with apologists for that party’s establishment. At the very least, if we are trying to build a coalition, we should look in places other than the Democratic Party.
“Read Silber. He gets it: Accomplices to Murder” X2
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/
Thanks for your work Kevin.
But let’s all close ranks around an international terrorist who commits crimes against humanity. Because he hasn’t totally destroyed the safety net …yet. And he’s better on the social agenda. LOTE FOREVER!!!!
I suppose you believe the German children killed in WWII bombing were killed after a judge ruled they were guilty? The Japanese children killed by the firestorms created by the incendiary bombs before the nukes only after a judge and jury issued death sentences?
Virtually every member of Congress who voted against declaring war on individuals was defeated or has died, and you go flailing around refusing to seek repeal of the declaration of war on individuals.
A declaration of war is due process.
The declaration of war on individuals is due process that makes the Commander in Chief the person who, like FDR, decided that German children would die as their parents who provide material support for killing Americans in German factories are killed, like Truman, decided that children in Japan would die as their parents were targeted for their material support for killing Americans, and so the 2001 declaration of war on individuals also leads to children being killed.
Get real war kills children.
When Congress with very few objection declared war on individuals, Congress ordered the killing of individuals, and that means children will be killed.
What have you done to make sure Congress repeals its declaration of war on individuals, a vague open ended war on individuals in perpetuity?
Don’t blame Obama for Congress declaring war on individuals in 2001 which was the due process which makes it the responsibility to kill individuals anywhere in the world by military force.
FDR had his kill list: Hitler and his generals and every soldier and every factory worker in Germany and their children. Truman had his kill list of every person in Japan resisting total surrender. Obama has his kill list of
A declaration of war is due process.
There has been no declaration of war. Period. Full stop. The AUMF is not a declaration of war. You can’t declare war on individuals. And your comparison of actual war (the bombings in WWII which took civilian lives) to the targeted murder or people “suspected” of being criminals (which is what people suspected of terrorism are) is fallacious.
Also, “…the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001” tells the story. The people we are killing now are not the people who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.”
At least we know where you stand. You’re waiting for Caesar.
War is declared against nations.
When the Constitution of the United States was being circulated for ratification, the people/states refused to ratify it unless they got firm assurances that what we now call the “Bill of Rights” would follow quickly. The new federal government kept its word.
The Bill of Rights imposes obligation and limitations on the federal government. It says how the nation will behave. Nothing in the Constitution limits those obligations of the federal government to American citizens. (Though the “melting pot” was almost two hundred years old by then, and the concept of fighting wars on foreign soil being as old as the concept of nations, the concept of American citizenship was almost brand new, the Constitution itself declaring those living in the United States at the time of ratification to be citizens.)
No mention at all of limiting the Bill of Rights to American citizens.
P.S. Gibbs made Bush’s press secretaries seem lovable in comparison.
Thanks for the link to a very thoughtful article!
Not one of TBogg’s posts that I have ever read was any more thoughtful, educational or substantive than this: “Our team is good. The other team is bad. Fuck anybody who says otherwise.” It is all merely a slightly different shade of what one finds at Free Republic.
“At this point, both camps rely more on fear and paranoia of the other to attract votes than vision or hope or firmly held belief.”
Oh yes. Another point of stark similarity between the red team and the blue team is how each side is convinced the other will destroy their world. Most of the folks I hang out with recreationally are Reps or conservatives. Most of them are convinced that Team Obama is steering the Good Old US of A straight to hell. The Dems say the same about Romney. Their shared fear of the Other unites these two parties and renders them indistinguishable–except for the color of their jerseys, of course. Well, 70 years of perpetual war will get you some scared shitless citizens. What would be impressive, and just possibly revolutionary, would be if voters for either party could stop being afraid. One might bring such folks together under the name of “The No Fear Party.” I suspect that many of the apathetic and disenchanted who no longer vote might join.
I, too, suspect voter turnout will be very low. Most everyone I can think of who will be voting will be doing so to vote against the candidate they fear the most. You don’t get high voter turnout in that environment. What will be made of such a low turnout? Will voters be lazy and un-American or be seen as smart enough to know there is nothing to vote for? Or . . . ? I think you may be right about realizing the bankruptcy of both parties.