You gotta blame someone

Last March protesters took to the streets of Bahrain demanding a voice in the governance of the oil-rich kingdom. Imagine that - in this day and age of democracy busting out all over, we have the vestiges of an era in which someone grabbed a bigger stick and declared himself to be king. How could that cause any problems?

As is wont to happen when an authoritarian regime is challenged, the security forces (providing security for whom?) were whipped into a frenzy and went into a murderous rampage against their own citizens. Now let's just think about that for a moment. Armed personnel (thugs?) in the employ of the government are ordered to beat, maim, intimidate and kill anyone who dare speak out against the regime. The same regime that puts on its smiley face and tells the people to be patient - that reform is in the works.

Nope. Wrong answer. What we have is a government that has lost all legitimacy. Once a regime turns its armed forces on its own citizenry, it has lost whatever moral authority it may have had in the first place. And any member of the security forces (or police or army or whatever the hell you want to call the thugs) that follows an order to turn his weapon on a fellow citizen is guilty of a crime.

But there's more. You see the Bahraini government decided that it wasn't enough to beat, maim and kills its own citizens. After all, the victims who were still breathing had to get medical treatment somewhere. With all apologies to Shakespeare, the king decided the first thing he needed to do was kill the doctors.

Punish the doctors, that's right. Forget about the dead and the wounded. Forget about the army pointing its weapons at the people it's supposed to protect (well, that's what we're told the military and police do - in reality their job is to protect the chosen few.)

Twenty doctors, nurses and medics were convicted of inciting the people to overthrow the government and were sentenced to between five and 15 years in prison. Forget about the soldiers that shot, maimed and killed their fellow citizens - they went back to their barracks and got some commendation or ribbon to pin to their uniforms. But the medics who did what doctors do got the whip.

Maybe some of the medics wanted to see the government overthrown. Maybe some were part of the protests. Who cares? They were tried and convicted for tending to the wounded and trying to save their lives. They were punished for treating the citizens who were injured at the hands of their own government.

Bowing to international pressure (and to an international panel's report that found "abuses" in the government's crackdown on protesters -- I guess you could call killing protesters to be abusive. I prefer to call it murder), the medics were retried on Monday.

Maybe the regime tries to make nice and hope everything blows over. But you can't unring the bell. And, no matter how hard you scrub, you can't wash away the blood on your hands.

Shhh! It's a secret

Naturally the very existence of the document is a national security secret (or at least a pinkie-swear secret) - but what you expect when the document in question is used to justify the murder of an American by his own government?

Jeff Gamso had the right idea this past Sunday. Reading about the memo and what may, or may not, be contained within is the equivalent of one of those friend of a friend stories that Jan Harold Brunvand collected in his quest for urban legends.  

The memo, written last year, followed months of extensive interagency deliberations and offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama — to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial.

The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat.

The Obama administration has refused to acknowledge or discuss its role in the drone strike that killed Mr. Awlaki last month and that technically remains a covert operation. The government has also resisted growing calls that it provide a detailed public explanation of why officials deemed it lawful to kill an American citizen, setting a precedent that scholars, rights activists and others say has raised concerns about the rule of law and civil liberties.

President Obama wasted no opportunity to claim credit for the killing of Mr. Awlaki (al-Zawahri in the original article) when he thought it might get him support for his upcoming re-election bid. But, once the criticism began rolling in, President Obama and his minions circled their wagons. And now we have this secret memo (that supposedly exists) written for the express purpose of justifying state-sponsored murder.

The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.

See, that's all you need to know. Our intelligence agencies said so - therefore it must be the truth. Because he said some bad things and because some people did some bad things we must kill him. We must ignore the Constitution in order to protect ourselves.

Or some line of garbage like that. We live in a society in which a great number of folks don't believe anything the government tells them. President Obama could tell everyone today is Wednesday and there will be a segment of the population convinced he is lying. Yet these same folks have no problem believing the government after it orders the killing of an American citizen.

But, if I were the president, maybe I'd rather deal with the muted backlash after ordering a hit on an American citizen rather than questions about how poorly the economy is performing.

Death without due process

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. -- 5th Amendment

The United States has killed two of its own. On Friday, under orders from President Obama, a US military airstrike resulted in the death of Ayman al-Zawahri, an American-born cleric who had become a vocal critic of US policy. Killed alongside Mr. al-Zawahri was Samir Khan.

In July, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said al-Awlaki was a priority target alongside Ayman al-Zawahri, bin Laden's successor as the terror network's leader.

The Yemeni-American had been in the U.S. crosshairs since his killing was approved by President Barack Obama in April 2010 — making him the first American placed on the CIA "kill or capture" list. At least twice, airstrikes were called in on locations in Yemen where al-Awlaki was suspected of being, but he wasn't harmed.

Mr. al-Zawahri and Mr. Khan weren't arrested for anything. They weren't charged with anything. They were never indicted. They were never tried before a jury of his peers. They were never convicted of any crime against the United States.

There was no due process of law. Mr. al-Zawahri and Mr. Khan, were deprived of their most basic rights because they dared to voice criticism of US policy in the Middle East.

President Bush (the Younger) created a shitstorm when he ordered suspected terrorists and their supporters to be held indefinitely in prison. People were also up in arms (at least those who knew what was going on) about the expanded powers given to the government to spy on its own citizens. But neither of those policies holds a candle to ordering the death of American citizens without affording them due process of law.

As flawed as the Troy Davis situation may have been, at least he was afforded his day in court. That's more than Mr. al-Zawahri and Mr. Khan were given. If los federales had the goods on Mr. al-Zawahri and Mr. Khan, why not obtain an indictment? Why not seek to extradite them? Why not put them on trial? If their deeds were serious enough to warrant death - then let's see the evidence. What are you afraid of, President Obama?

Is it because their "crimes" involved being vocal critics of your foreign policy? Is it because of the words they spoke and wrote?

Thus far President Obama has caught flak for the state of the economy on his watch. Now it's time he catches it for ordering the deaths of two American citizens and depriving them of their constitutional rights. When President Obama was sworn into office, he took an oath to defend the US Constitution.



President Obama, you just violated that oath. You were not only part of a conspiracy to deprive two American citizens of their constitutional protections - you were the man in charge of the conspiracy. In depriving them of their constitutional rights, you also conspired to murder the two men.

See also:

"Ron Paul calls US killing of American-born al-Qaida cleric in Yemen an 'assassination.'" Washington Post (Sept. 30, 2011)

"Obama praises al-Awlaki killing," Time (Sept. 30, 2011)

What twisted webs we weave

In the end all you have is your name and your credibility. Once you've besmirched those two things, you have nothing left.

The internet, the blogosphere, the 24-hour news cycle and satellite and cable television have made it easier to obtain information -- but they've also made it easier deceive the public.

Thanks to the miracles of the internet, I was able to time the release of blog posts while I was on Edisto Island in South Carolina last week. Not knowing when I'd get the chance to update the blog I wrote a week's worth of pieces in the days before we set out.

Tom MacMaster, a 40-year old American student studying in Scotland, used the internet to perpetuate a hoax. I'm sure it didn't start out that way. He created an online persona that he used to comment on other blogs about the situation in the Middle East. This online persona, in his words, then took on a life of its own. He developed a back story of a half-American, half-Syrian lesbian struggling to come to grips with culture, religion and sex.

First came a Facebook page then came the blog. Then it all snowballed.

Journalists, academics, activists and others began following the saga of Amina Arraf. No one questioned whether she was a real person. No one questioned whether the events depicted in the blog even occurred. I mean, it's the Internet -- why wouldn't it be true?

Then Ms. Arraf was tossed in the clink. An online campaign protesting her arrest and demanding her release was born. Newspapers, both print and on-line, ran articles about her detention.Then someone decided to do a little fact-checking.

The gig was soon up.

Was Mr. MacMaster right or wrong? I don't know. He "misled" people who followed his tale of Amina online. But how does that differ from any work of fiction you pick off the shelf or any television drama you sit down to watch? He never asked for money. He never asked for anything. He created a story that people followed because they found it interesting.

Now Mr. MacMaster is a pariah. There are a lot of journalists and other so-called experts who have egg on their faces because they took what they read on the internet as the truth. Mr. MacMaster has apologized for the hoax -- my guess is he's more sorry he got "caught" than he is for creating the story.

Has he harmed the cause of those seeking change in the Middle East? Does this mean that journalists might begin checking their facts before publishing stories? Will we begin taking what we see on the internet with a healthy grain of salt?

In the meantime, Mr. MacMaster walks away with both his name and credibility sullied.