Just In: Obama Admin. Admits Gave OK Kill US Citizens Overseas!

[Peter Lemkin]

Way to Go USA! Hey, we're gonna show those damn Nazi's we can be meaner, tougher, more ruthless, care less about law and justice.....we edge closer every day....to our ultimate goal.....!!::thumpdown:

US says it may kill Americans abroad

By John Byrne
Thursday, February 4th, 2010 -- 8:57 am

Update at bottom: Renowned blogger/lawyer Glenn Greenwald says program breaks US laws

In a striking admission from the Obama Administration's top intelligence officer, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair announced Wednesday that the United States may target its own citizens abroad for death if it believes they are associated with terrorist groups.

"We take direct action against terrorists in the intelligence community," Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee. He said US counter-terrorism officials may try to kill American citizens embroiled in extremist groups overseas with "specific permission" from higher up.

If "we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," Blair said in response to questions from the panel's top Republican, Representative Pete Hoekstra.

Blair's comments came after The Washington Post reported that US President Barack Obama had embraced predecessor George W. Bush's policy of authorizing the killing of US citizens involved in terrorist activities overseas.
Story continues below...


If a United States citizen was determined to have joined a foreign terrorist group, that person could be legally murdered under orders given by President George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks.

"After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said," the Post reported. "The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose 'a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests,' said one former intelligence official.

"The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, 'it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them,' said a senior administration official. 'They are then part of the enemy.'"

The Post, citing anonymous US officials, said the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Joint Special Operations Command have three Americans on their lists of specific people targeted for killing or capture.

Blair said weighing whether to target a US national required determining "whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American is a threat to other Americans."

The intelligence chief said he was offering such unusually detailed information in public because "I just don't want other Americans who are watching to think that we are careless."

"In fact, we're not careless about endangering lives at all, but we especially are not careless about endangering American lives as we try to carry out the policies to protect most of the country," he said.

Hoekstra, the ranking Republican, asked what the standards were for targeting American citizens abroad. Blair didn't specifically articulate them.

"We don't target people for free speech," he said. "We target them for taking action that threatens Americans."

Hoekstra pressed him, citing a 2001 incident in which Peru's air force shot down a plane carrying US missionaries, killing a woman and her seven-month-old daughter, after the aircraft was misidentified as a drug-smuggler.

"We were careless and we were reckless," Blair replied. "I want to make sure that this committee does everything that it can and within its power that it does not allow the community to be reckless and careless again."

"While I'm in charge, we will not be careless and reckless," he pledged.

Renowned blogger/lawyer Glenn Greenwald says program breaks US laws

Two of the most respected bloggers from the left who focus on civil liberties and constitutional issues offered harsh criticisms of the assassination program on Thursday.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald, a former NYC lawyer and the 'author of two New York Times Bestselling books,' observes, "Although Blair emphasized that it requires 'special permission' before an American citizen can be placed on the assassination list, consider from whom that 'permission' is obtained: the President, or someone else under his authority within the Executive Branch. There are no outside checks or limits at all on how these 'factors' are weighed. In last week's post, I wrote about all the reasons why it's so dangerous -- as well as both legally and Constitutionally dubious -- to allow the President to kill American citizens not on an active battlefield during combat, but while they are sleeping, sitting with their families in their home, walking on the street, etc. That's basically giving the President the power to impose death sentences on his own citizens without any charges or trial. Who could possibly support that?"

Greenwald continues,

The severe dangers of vesting assassination powers in the President are so glaring that even GOP Rep. Pete Hoekstra is able to see them (at least he is now that there's a Democratic President). At yesterday's hearing, Hoekstra asked Adm. Blair about the threat that the President might order Americans killed due to their Constitutionally protected political speech rather than because they were actually engaged in Terrorism. This concern is not an abstract one. The current controversy has been triggered by the Obama administration's attempt to kill U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. But al-Awlaki has not been accused (let alone convicted) of trying to attack Americans. Instead, he's accused of being a so-called "radical cleric" who supports Al Qaeda and now provides "encouragement" to others to engage in attacks -- a charge al-Awlaki's family vehemently denies (al-Awlaki himself is in hiding due to fear that his own Government will assassinate him).

The question of where First Amendment-protected radical advocacy ends and criminality begins is exactly the sort of question with which courts have long grappled. In the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who — surrounded by hooded indivduals holding weapons — gave a speech threatening ”revengeance” against any government official who “continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race.” The Court held that the First Amendment protects advocacy of violence and revolution, and that the State is barred from punishing citizens for the expression of such views. The Brandenburg Court pointed to a long history of precedent protecting the First Amendment rights of Communists to call for revolution — even violent revolution — inside the U.S., and explained that the Government can punish someone for violent actions but not for speech that merely advocates or justifies violence (emphasis added):

As we [395 U.S. 444, 448] said in Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297 -298 (1961), "the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action." See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 259 -261 (1937); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 134 (1966). A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control.

Blogger Empty Wheel, who published a highly acclaimed book on the Plame leak case under her real name Marcia Wheeler, writes, "Glenn’s point is important because it appears the government agrees with him on the First Amendment point: all of the speech al-Awlaki has engaged in for the last decade was not deemed worthy of even a criminal indictment. Yet all of a sudden, it got al-Awlaki on the kill list."

[David Guyatt]

In a striking admission from the Obama Administration's top intelligence officer, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair announced Wednesday that the United States may target its own citizens abroad for death if it believes they are associated with terrorist groups.

Once upon a time in the distant past there was this very curious and archaic system whereby someone believed to be doing something inimical to the interests of the state (or at least against its stated laws), would be arrested by a policemen, taken to court where something called a trial took place. Advocates for the accuser (the state) and the defence (the accused) presented factual evidence and a Jury of 12 men and women weighed the evidence and came to a judgement whether the accused was guilty or innocent of the accusation -- and if found guilty then a court Judge handed down a punishment. This was especially the case in cases where the defendants life was in jeopardy if found guilty. I say especially because human jurisprudence over the centuries turned up so many cases where a trial was rigged, the evidence false and innocent lives taken needlessly that it was felt that a particularly strong test must be made to ensure the judgement must be correct in the future.

It was, undeniably, a very laborious process - and mistakes continued to happen from time to time. But, at least, it was the best that could be managed under the circumstances, namely the blind leading the blind.

It seems like sheer madness these days, I know. Thankfully such archaic ideas and processes slipped into misuse what seems like centuries ago now. Today we are fortunate to have a state that is never wrong, would certainly never do anything that was unlawful and who, bless them, have only our best interests in the forefront of their mind. So we can rest assured that they will only do right.

Ergo, justice is safe in their hands.

As are our wallets....

[Peter Lemkin]

In a striking admission from the Obama Administration's top intelligence officer, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair announced Wednesday that the United States may target its own citizens abroad for death if it believes they are associated with terrorist groups.

Once upon a time in the distant past there was this very curious and archaic system whereby someone believed to be doing something inimical to the interests of the state (or at least against its stated laws), would be arrested by a policemen, taken to court where something called a trial took place. Advocates for the accuser (the state) and the defence (the accused) presented factual evidence and a Jury of 12 men and women weighed the evidence and came to a judgement whether the accused was guilty or innocent of the accusation -- and if found guilty then a court Judge handed down a punishment. This was especially the case in cases where the defendants life was in jeopardy if found guilty. I say especially because human jurisprudence over the centuries turned up so many cases where a trial was rigged, the evidence false and innocent lives taken needlessly that it was felt that a particularly strong test must be made to ensure the judgement must be correct in the future.

It was, undeniably, a very laborious process - and mistakes continued to happen from time to time. But, at least, it was the best that could be managed under the circumstances, namely the blind leading the blind.

It seems like sheer madness these days, I know. Thankfully such archaic ideas and processes slipped into misuse what seems like centuries ago now. Today we are fortunate to have a state that is never wrong, would certainly never do anything that was unlawful and who, bless them, have only our best interests in the forefront of their mind. So we can rest assured that they will only do right.

Ergo, justice is safe in their hands.

As are our wallets....

Yeah, 'Once Upon A Time....' like in a fairytale. Just think in a few years there will be young adults who don't remember anything of such 'old fashioned' and cumbersome methods of justice. A killer drone not only saves time, but saves the trouble of all of the above. Just one last thought.....from killing citizens outside the country without trial - or legal process of any kind - to the killing citizens INSIDE the country without trial - or legal process of any kind is a VERY small step - and as all on this Forum know has already been stepped over many 'O time [covertly]....and it is only a matter of months, IMO, before that say so openly! When I was young I used to want to live to be 100 or more. Now at 59 I sometimes wonder if I even want to bother reaching 60, the way things are going.......:bandit:

[Peter Lemkin]

[me speaking - who's to say that your government doesn't find you secretly, without any legal process a 'terrorist' and decides it can kill you without any compunctions or consequences?.......]:five: I'm an American critical of the Regime out of the USA....am I fair game....I assume I am!


AMY GOODMAN: The Obama administration has acknowledged it’s continuing a Bush-era policy authorizing the killing of US citizens abroad. The confirmation came from Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair in congressional testimony last week.

Blair told the House Intelligence Committee US forces can assassinate Americans believed to be involved in terrorist activity against the United States. Blair said, quote, “Being a US citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans.” He added, “We don’t target people for free speech; we target them for taking action that threatens Americans.”

Blair’s comments came one week after the Washington Post reported at least three US citizens are on “hit lists” maintained by the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command. The most well-known target is the US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is accused of having ties to the failed Christmas Day airline bombing and the shooting at Fort Hood.

My first two guests have been among the most vocal critics of the continued assassination policy. Democratic Congress member Dennis Kucinich joins us from Washington, DC. Last week he wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder requesting an explanation of the Obama administration’s legal basis for the extrajudicial killing of US citizens. And we’re joined on the telephone by Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional law attorney and political and legal blogger for Salon.com. He wrote a widely circulated piece for Salon last week called “Presidential Assassinations of US Citizens.”

Let’s begin with Congress member Dennis Kucinich. Explain what you wrote to Attorney General Holder.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, I think it’s incumbent upon the Attorney General to explain the basis in law for such a policy. Our Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, our Seventh Amendment, our Fourteenth Amendment all clearly provide legal protections for people who are accused or who would be sentenced after having been judged to be guilty. And what’s happened is that the Constitution is being vitiated here. The idea that people are—have—if their life is in jeopardy, legally have due process of law, is thrown out the window.

And, Amy, when you consider that there are people who are claiming there are many terrorist cells in the United States, it doesn’t take too much of a stretch to imagine that this policy could easily be transferred to citizens in this country. That doesn’t—that only compounds what I think is a slow and steady detachment from core constitutional principles. And once that happens, we have a country then that loses its memory and its soul, with respect to being disconnected from those core constitutional principles which are the basis of freedom in our society.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, you’ve been writing about this extensively. Can you talk about your major objections and where you think this policy is going?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, first of all, look at the controversies that Democrats and progressives were so vocal about during the Bush years. They objected vehemently over the Bush administration’s wiretapping of American citizens without any court warrants or judicial oversight. They objected when the Bush administration put, not American citizens, but foreign nationals into cages at Guantánamo, merely on the say-so of the President that these people were terrorists.

Here, you’re talking about the worst elements of those policies, but even more extreme. You’re talking about American citizens not being merely wiretapped by the President with no oversight, but murdered, assassinated, killed, based solely on the unchecked say-so of the President.

And I think what really has to be emphasized is, look at how many times over the past decade that the administration—both first the Bush administration, then the Obama administration—has accused people of being terrorists, the worst of the worst, and it turned out that they were completely wrong. Hundreds of people who were at Guantánamo ended up being released because there was no evidence of wrongdoing print. Ever since the Supreme Court in 2008 granted habeas corpus rights to detainees, thirty-three out of thirty-nine Guantánamo detainees who brought their cases before a court were ordered released by federal judges on the grounds that there was no evidence to justify the accusations against them.

So there are few things more dangerous than allowing the executive branch to label people terrorists and treat them accordingly, and that danger is compounded severely when you’re talking about American citizens who have constitutional rights and talking about not merely eavesdropping on them or imprisoning them, but actually murdering them.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn, you quote a 1981 executive order signed by Ronald Reagan.

GLENN GREENWALD: Right. Well, you know, assassinations have a very long and sordid history in the United States, and the reason is, is that the CIA has used assassinations as a major weapon in its arsenal, so much so that they’ve assassinated people who ended up being wrongly killed, who ended up causing great controversy because it’s extrajudicial killings. And even Ronald Reagan, who engaged in all sorts of extreme policies in Central America waging covert war, declared political assassinations, assassinations of political leaders, to be illegal. Now that applies only to political assassinations, not necessarily to assassinations of people accused of terrorism, but the principle is the same, that these kind of extrajudicial killings, which we condemn when virtually every other country does, was so extreme, so contrary to our values, that even Ronald Reagan issued an executive order banning it.

And now here’s President Obama doing it again, not with regard to foreign nationals or to foreign leaders who we accuse of all kinds of extremities, but United States citizens, in the case of al-Awlaki, born and raised and educated in the United States. And it’s as severe and extreme a policy as can be imagined.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Congress member Dennis Kucinich, what can you do about this in Congress?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, Congress has the authority, under a joint resolution, to challenge any presidential directive. It’s not widely known, Amy, but there are at least three states of national emergency that we’re operating under right now by presidential declaration: one relating to 9/11, another one relating to the war on terror, and a third one relating to Iran. You know, this idea of being governed by an edict, of being locked into this war on terror, poses all kinds of challenges to our Constitution. I take an oath to defend the Constitution. And when I see in the Fifth Amendment where it says that no one should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, I want to know what’s the constitutional basis for suspending this provision for anyone, even for a moment, because if this is—if this, in any sense, can be set aside, then we are on a slippery slope to anti-democracy.

And I think that the reason why this is important for the Attorney General to reflect upon is that the President and all federal officials take an oath to defend that Constitution. This is the Constitution. If they’re saying that the authorization for the use of military force passed after 9/11 is the basis for this action, we should know that they’re saying that. But a fair reading of that said it applied only to those who were involved in 9/11, not someone who joins an organization later on, no matter how misguided or wrongheaded that that may be, that is seen to be a threat to the US, that someone can just say, “Well, you know, you’re done. You’re dead.”

You know, what about the right to be able to be told of the charges against you? What about the right to a trial? What about the right to be able to have—be presented by your accusers? This is—this is a dangerous moment. And either—I see it as a constitutional crisis. And Congress has to start stepping up to review these actions without regard to whether it’s a Democrat or Republican administration.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you have support among your colleagues, Congressman Kucinich?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: I just raised this issue in the last week, and it’s been snowing here, so I’ll be speaking to my colleagues about that when I see them. I’m here. I’m hopeful that this week there will still be some sessions of Congress, so we can begin the discussion.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, thank you for making your way into the studio today. On another issue, I wanted to ask you about the Supreme Court decision. You ran for president. You were part of the Democratic primary. In fact, wasn’t it true that ABC News stopped following you when they said you hadn’t raised enough money? I wanted to ask you about the Supreme Court decision opening the floodgates for corporate money in politics.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: We’re working on a constitutional amendment right now, Amy, that would address this—the core issues in not only the Citizens United case, but the Buckley v. Valeo case. Our government right now is like an auction, where policy is—goes to the highest bidder. And this pay-to-play environment is destructive of any hope that people could have to have their practical aspirations addressed by the government. You know, the idea that Wall Street is now moving its smart money over to the Republicans is quite instructive. The idea that health insurance interests could raise money during the very—for members of Congress, during the very time that legislation is before the Congress that would change the way that they do business, these are things that reflect on the danger to our democracy.

And I think this Citizens United case, which gave the corporations the ability to interfere in elections in a major way, through their money, puts us at risk of openly having a corporate-dominated government. Now it’s kind of a secret, I suppose, in some places. But it’s now—you know, once Citizens United was decided by the Supreme Court in the way it was, now it’s basically open season on anyone who challenges these corporate interests and a free pass for anyone who supports them. A real danger to our democratic tradition calls out for constitutional remedies, and there are many that are now being considered, and I’m certainly working on some.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response, Glenn Greenwald?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, you know, it was interesting because I was—I agree with Congressman Kucinich completely with regard to the constitutional arguments he was making about the presidential assassination program. If you look at the Fifth Amendment, it really does say no person shall be deprived of life without due process. It says that in clear terms. To me, the First Amendment is just as clear, and it says Congress shall make no law abridging free speech. And as Justice Hugo Black said, I read that to mean Congress shall make no law abridging free speech.

So, I certainly agree that corporate dominance of our Congress—you know, Senator Durbin recently said the banks own the place, an extraordinary statement for the second-highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate to make. I think the corporate dominance of our political process is one of the two or three greatest threats we face. But I also think that whatever solutions we try and find for that need to be consistent with the clear constitutional prescriptions of the First Amendment, and allowing the government to ban or regulate corporations from speaking out on elections, to me, seems very problematic.

So I think there are ways around it. I think public financing of campaigns can equalize the playing field. I think some constitutional amendment might be viable, but I do think it’s a very difficult question constitutionally to allow the government to start saying who can speak about our elections and who can’t. So, I think the First Amendment needs to be just as honored as the Fifth Amendment when we talk about these issues.

AMY GOODMAN: Congress member Kucinich?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, I would agree with Mr. Greenwald and also thank him for the three important articles he wrote in the wake of Dana Priest writing in the Washington Post about this assassination program.

With respect to corporate contributions, let’s take for example anyone who gets a contract from the government. Why should they be permitted to plow the money they get from taxpayers back into political contributions? Because since money is fungible, that is what would happen. There should be restrictions there. That would go a long way to stopping these interest groups from being able to compete for government contracts and then turn around and rewarding those who give them money. I mean, take, for example, the bailouts. You know, we have an—will have an unending bailout culture, if you can have Wall Street continuing to give money to politicians who will then vote for bailouts for them. When does it stop?

This is why the only remedy is constitutional. And certainly one of the factors that has to be in there is public financing. I mean, if you have public financing of campaigns, you have public ownership of the political process. You have private financing of campaigns, you have private ownership of the political process. So, again, we have to—we’re continuing in this experiment in government to decide what kind of government we want. Do we want government of the people? Do we want government of the corporations? Right now, with two Supreme Court rulings, we have moved towards the balance towards government of the corporations. This is something that Jefferson feared, something that Lincoln feared, something that Eisenhower warned about. And we should find out, in this time, in 2010, whether or not we truly believe that this Declaration of Independence and Constitution is a living testament or whether it’s just, you know, a document gathering dust in some place in antiquity.

AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, in this last minute, Congress member Kucinich, the death of your close friend, Congress member Murtha.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: You know, when you see someone like John Murtha, who had the capacity to listen carefully and to watch carefully what was happening in Iraq and to come forward as he did in 2006 to change and to challenge the war, that was an important moment. Congressman Neil Abercrombie and I spent many long discussions with John Murtha talking to him about the war and expressing to him, in 2004, 2005, our deep concerns about the direction that the war had gone, and John Murtha listened carefully. And that really was the measure of Mr. Murtha.

I have to tell you, on a personal note, I mean, despite the fact that he and I may have had some, you know, fundamental differences of opinion about the great mass of money that went—that goes into the Department of Defense, he was someone—because of his openness, he was someone who was really loved by members of Congress. And my—[no audio]

AMY GOODMAN: We just lost Congress member Kucinich. But we’re going to go to break, and when we come back, we’re going to play a brief conversation I had with Congress member Murtha in 2006. It was about the killings in Haditha. It was about the war in Iraq. Congress member Kucinich, joining us from Ohio, and Glenn Greenwald, joining us on the phone, constitutional law attorney and legal blogger at Salon.com.

[David Guyatt]

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, Congress has the authority, under a joint resolution, to challenge any presidential directive. It’s not widely known, Amy, but there are at least three states of national emergency that we’re operating under right now by presidential declaration: one relating to 9/11, another one relating to the war on terror, and a third one relating to Iran. You know, this idea of being governed by an edict, of being locked into this war on terror, poses all kinds of challenges to our Constitution. I take an oath to defend the Constitution. And when I see in the Fifth Amendment where it says that no one should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, I want to know what’s the constitutional basis for suspending this provision for anyone, even for a moment, because if this is—if this, in any sense, can be set aside, then we are on a slippery slope to anti-democracy.

(my bolding)

Kucinich appears to be saying that the Constitution has been secretly suspended following 911?

Although off subject, he also lets the cat out of the bag that there a state of national emergency has been declared about Iran, which was news to me, and by which I assume that Iran is going to be hammered no matter what? The decision has already been taken?

[Peter Lemkin]

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, Congress has the authority, under a joint resolution, to challenge any presidential directive. It’s not widely known, Amy, but there are at least three states of national emergency that we’re operating under right now by presidential declaration: one relating to 9/11, another one relating to the war on terror, and a third one relating to Iran. You know, this idea of being governed by an edict, of being locked into this war on terror, poses all kinds of challenges to our Constitution. I take an oath to defend the Constitution. And when I see in the Fifth Amendment where it says that no one should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, I want to know what’s the constitutional basis for suspending this provision for anyone, even for a moment, because if this is—if this, in any sense, can be set aside, then we are on a slippery slope to anti-democracy.

(my bolding)

Kucinich appears to be saying that the Constitution has been secretly suspended following 911?

Although off subject, he also lets the cat out of the bag that there a state of national emergency has been declared about Iran, which was news to me, and by which I assume that Iran is going to be hammered no matter what? The decision has already been taken?

We have SO SO SO Precious few real Representatives, and fewer still Senators who are not owned down to their gonads. Kucinich could have been, IMO, a real Presidential contender and President, but the powers that be didn't even let him get to what we call in the 'States' 'first base'......not a candle's chance in Hell. These three states of national emergency [non-capitals mine] trump the Constitution and much common and statutory law, by fiat..I never did like those cars!

My good man and former financial bigwig, before 'she' is soon widely seen to be a strumpet - a woman of loose morals and false facade, may I interest you in a very highly discounted half of a continent. Cash on the barrelhead, no scrip taken......offer ends very soon. I think even the dolts will soon figure out where America has put her dirty underwear.

Did you hear that today an American ex-soldier in Iraq was arrested [thank goodness or small miracles!] for repeatedly waterboarding his four year old daughter for not doing her 'A,B,C' to his satisfaction......

Your Empire faded out with the end of the War and ours is now at denouement.

[Peter Lemkin]

A US soldier was accused of waterboarding his four-year-old daughter because she would not recite the alphabet.

Joshua Tabor, 27, allegedly pushed the child's head under water face-up in the kitchen sink at his house.

Tabor told a police officer he and his girlfriend "held her down on the counter and submerged her head into the water three or four times until the water came around her forehead and jawline," according to court documents.

The suspect said he meted out the punishment to the youngster for "refusing to say her letters."

Tabor, a soldier at the Lewis-McChord base in Tacoma, Wash., was charged with second-degree assault of a child and was due to appear in court Feb. 16.


The suspect told police his daughter was afraid of water "and was squirming around trying to get away from the water."

"Joshua did not act as though he felt there was anything wrong with this form of punishment," the report said.

The controversial practice of waterboarding was used by the CIA to break Al Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Water was poured over the faces of detainees until they feared they would drown.

President Barack Obama since banned the practice.

Police went to Tabor's house in the Tacoma suburb of Yelm after his girlfriend reported he was "irate, intoxicated and walking around the neighborhood with his Kevlar helmet threatening to break windows."

Tabor's girlfriend told officers he beat the child. The youngster's back was reportedly covered in bruises.

She also claimed the child locked herself in a cupboard because she was afraid of her father.

Police sergeant Rob Carlson confirmed the alleged abuse happened because the little girl would not recite her ABCs, according to police reports.

Tabor was released from jail after posting $10,000 bail but restricted to the base at Lewis-McChord as a condition of his release and cannot have any contact with his girlfriend or children.

The youngster was taken into custody by Child Protective Services.

[Peter Lemkin]

O.K, Late night special. Whole Nation for half price....

[Ed Jewett]

In James Douglass' book "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters" [unhesitatingly recommended], I am up to page 322. On the preceding 14 pages, he speaks of the stories of Navy Lt. Commander William Bruce Pritzker and retired Army Special Forces lieutenant colonel Daniel Marvin, and earlier quoted Charles Crenshaw, M.D. from his book "JFK: Conspiracy of Silence": "... anyone who would go so far as to eliminate the President of the United States would surely not hesitate to kill a doctor."

Google up General Order 100 by Abraham Lincoln, cue up the 'Godfather' theme music, and then watch Episode 1C of "The World at War" about the night of the long knives and the dawening realization of the Germans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oyiHbQ4B...r_embedded

Extrajudicial murder has achieved a breakthrough, and now we have the condottieri of the private military contractors. See also:

The Central Intelligence Agency at Work

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...-operation.html

And then there is this:

“The ongoing struggle to put Logan County's Blair Mountain on the National Register of Historic Places is drawing attention to West Virginia's notorious mine wars of the early 1900s. Whether or not Blair finally gets U.S. recognition, one thing is certain: The bloody conflict truly was historic.
The State Archives contain many books and reports on America's largest insurrection since the Civil War … Full-scale warfare between defenders on Blair and strikers below ensued for several days. Chafin's forces included state troopers, militiamen, Baldwin-Felts guards and deputized Logan countians. Hundreds of thousands of bullets were fired in the woodland, but casualties were surprisingly light, perhaps under 20. Nobody knows an accurate body count.
President Harding sent federal troops from Kentucky, plus an air squadron under war hero Billy Mitchell from Langley Field near Washington.”
Read the full commentary here:
http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/OpEdComment...1002060273


"Plus ca change ..."


People outside the States yell that we inside the States should wake up and do something, and some inside the States yell to the states outside the States to do something.

I don't think we'll have to wait long now to see the outcome.

Film at 11.

[Magda Hassan]

There is something Kaftaesque, if not grotesque, about there even being a discussion about if it is legal or not for the US state to murder US citizens. I am not a lawyer but even I know it is a) wrong and b) illegal. End of discussion.