Behold President Obama: The Cowardly Assassin-In-Chief

June 7, 2012

Since the New York Times published an article about President Obama’s assassination-by-drone program, several writers, including Glenn Greenwald (here, here, here, here, and here), Tom Engelhardt (here), and Kevin Gosztola (here, here, here, here here and here) have posted articles condemning it.

I am appalled and sickened by Obama’s definition of a “militant” as any male of military age within the strike zone, unless posthumously determined to be innocent. This is a conclusive presumption of guilt and death sentence based on apparent age, gender and presence near an intended target, or in the case of signature strikes, mere association with others who also fit the definition and profile of a militant.

There is no discernible difference between this policy and the Vietnam War policy,

Kill ’em all and let God sort them out.

The decision to target a specific individual depends on the information available about that individual which may come from a variety of sources who are reliable and unreliable. The Attorney General and the President of the United States, who is a former Constitutional Law professor, assure us that the process by which the president decides whom to kill satisfies the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Yet, the president does nothing more than review a Power Point production with a photo of the individual under consideration with a bullet point list of alleged roles and activities in which he has engaged.

I was a criminal defense attorney for 30 years defending people charged with felonies, including death penalty offenses, and a law professor for three years teaching Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Causes of Wrongful Convictions. I can assure y’all that the process by which he makes these decisions is materially indistinguishable from a Star Chamber Proceeding. That is precisely what the Due Process Clause was intended and designed to prevent.

Do not ever forget that the Due Process Clause includes the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the right to present a defense. One cannot have due process without those rights.

Even with those rights, the presumption of innocence and a jury trial, innocent people are wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit. According to the Cardozo Innocence Project, 292 people innocent people have been exonerated by post-conviction DNA evidence.

The seven causes of wrongful convictions are:

1. Mistaken eyewitness testimony;

2. Police Misconduct;

3. Prosecutorial Misconduct;

4. False Confessions;

5. Forensic Fraud;

6. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; and

7. Jailhouse Informant Testimony

Note that only a small percentage of cases have biological evidence where it is possible to conduct a DNA test that will inculpate or exculpate a defendant. The seven causes of wrongful convictions can cause a wrongful conviction in any case.

The Department of Justice surveyed all public and private DNA labs in the country in the early 90s to determine how often each lab exculpated a prime suspect with a DNA test. The average rate varied little from lab to lab, whether public or private. The average rate was 22.5%

To nevertheless murder people without any meaningful process according to ridiculously overbroad definition of a militant is at best reckless homicide and at worst premeditated murder. Given its continuing use despite a high civilian casualty rate makes it premeditated murder.

To accept and allow this contrived exception to due process to stand is to tolerate an exception that swallows the rule. No American should tolerate it and no American should vote for the man who issues the order to kill. He is a murderer, a war criminal and utterly unfit to serve as President of the United States.

Anyone who votes for him will walk out of the voting booth with innocent blood on their hands.

Innocent blood that will never wash out.

I have another reason that motivated me to write this article.

President Obama obviously authorized the story in the New York Times because there is an election coming up in November and he wanted to portray himself as the candidate with the right stuff, ready, able and willing to make courageous and necessary decisions to keep all Americans safe.

But it does not take courage to order others to kill ’em all and let God sort them out, posthumously. And it does not take courage to look at a set of Power Point slides and, like a Roman emperor, issue a thumbs up or thumbs down sign.

Those are the acts of a murderous coward afraid of losing an election.

EDIT: I added links to a series of excellent articles by Kevin Gosztola that I inadvertently omitted from my original post. Thanks to Elliott at Firedoglake for the reminder.


Can You Direct Me To The House Of The Reasonable Man?

April 14, 2012

Many of our civil and criminal laws are based on the theoretical concept of the reasonable person and what he or she would do in any given situation. We establish standards of conduct based on this theoretical reasonable man or woman and impose civil or criminal liability and consequences on people who intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently violate those standards.

This concept of reasonableness can change over time as people’s concepts of what constitutes reasonable behavior in any given situation change.

For example, our common law comes from Great Britain and the Brits are not as violent and gun-loving as Americans. According to their cultural concepts, a reasonable person would attempt to retreat from a volatile situation before using force in self-defense. Hence, the duty to retreat at common law that we kept after we won the war for independence.

Conditions in the western frontier of our country were not as civilized and sedate as back east. Out west the thinking was real men stand their ground and shoot your ass, if you mess with them, so the western states eliminated the duty to retreat. Their concept regarding what a reasonable man would do when threatened with violence was significantly more aggressive than back east.

As our society has become more suspicious and fearful of strangers, more and more people now appear to believe that a reasonable person would stand their ground meeting violence with equal or greater violence. The NRA and many people now think that the solution to our violent society is more people armed with guns.

Recently, in a blog within these hallowed halls, a person said we should require all teachers to carry guns in order to stop violence in schools. I think that idea is absolutely crazy and about as unreasonable as unreasonable can get, but there is no denying that a lot of people believe it’s reasonable. Fortunately, I think I am still on the majority side of this issue.

Whenever you see the word “reasonable” in a law, it means an objective, as opposed to a subjective standard. In other words, reasonableness is not based on the perception of any specific identified person, which is a subjective standard. It’s based on the actual facts and circumstances of a given situation and what a hypothetical reasonable person would do in that situation.

As I have said, Florida’s SYG law is not a license to kill. Yes, a person can stand their ground. Yes, they have no duty to retreat, Yes they can use force, including deadly force in self-defense, but only if a reasonable person in the same situation (i.e., the objective reality out “there,” as opposed to a particular person’s perception of it) would do so, AND they cannot use more force than is reasonably (i.e., there’s that damn word again) necessary to prevent being assaulted. A person can use deadly force in self-defense only if the objective facts and circumstances of the situation they are in, as opposed to their perception of it, are such that a reasonable person in the same situation would believe it necessary to use deadly force to prevent being killed or suffering serious bodily injury.

Trayvon Martin was unarmed. That is an objective fact and circumstance. George Zimmerman was armed with a gun and following him. That is an objective fact and circumstance. They had a physical confrontation. That is another objective fact and circumstance. These are undisputed facts.

One of them started the fight. That is another objective fact and circumstance, but we do not know for certain who did. The identity of that person is a disputed fact and there have been many arguments about it.

I believe Zimmerman did because he followed Trayvon against the police dispatcher’s request. He thought Trayvon was a burglar casing the neighborhood and he was frustrated because he thought Trayvon was going to get away before the cops arrived. We know that is what he was thinking (i.e., his subjective state of mind) because he said so. As I recall, his specific words were, “These assholes always get away.”

He also got out of his SUV and started following Trayvon and, after being pressed by the dispatcher to provide an address or location where the police officer could meet him, he said, “I’ve to get out of here,” and told the dispatcher to tell the officer to call his cell phone when he arrived in the neighborhood, instead of agreeing to meet the officer at the mailboxes as he had previously suggested. The mailboxes are located close to the clubhouse near the entrance to the neighborhood and would have been easy for the officer to find. The only problem with meeting the officer at the mailboxes was that he had lost sight of Trayvon, who ran behind some houses and he did not want him to get away. He then terminated the conversation.

The objective reality was that Trayvon was staying in the neighborhood and walking home after purchasing Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea at a nearby 711. Therefore, Zimmerman was mistaken.

Would a reasonable person have made that mistake? Would you or anyone you know have made that mistake?

Having made that mistake, what, if anything, would you have done upon encountering Trayvon?

And what about that loaded 9 mm KelTek semiautomatic in your holster? What, if anything, would you have done with it?

Was George Zimmerman a reasonable person that night?

A casual perusal of the 47 pages of his 911 calls to report suspicious activity strongly suggests that he was anything but a reasonable person. Those 47 pages are a damning indictment of a deeply paranoid person and I challenge everyone to read every freaking entry on every freaking page and then construct an argument that he was not a ticking time bomb waiting for the right stressor to set him off.

Why did George Zimmerman call the police that night? He saw an older teenage Black male wearing a hoodie type sweatshirt, jeans, and white tennis shoes walking around in the rain looking around at houses. I am surprised he even noticed him. Why call the cops? Why not ask him, if he needs help or directions? Don’t the police have better things to do than to respond to calls about supposedly suspicious people doing ordinary things?

A police officer cannot detain someone to investigate a possible crime, unless they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. A hunch is not enough. There must be sufficient objective facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to suspect that the person was committing a crime. I do not see that here and I see no reason to summon police to investigate.

George Zimmerman likely knew all about the reasonable suspicion test since he is a student in a criminal justice program. That is one of the key concepts that is taught in those programs.

Nevertheless, George Zimmerman was certain that Trayvon was “up to no good” and, we know that because that is exactly what he told the dispatcher.

Knowing his state of mind when he ignored the dispatcher’s advice and he set off in search of Trayvon, which is something that no reasonable person would have done, what do believe he was prepared to do, if he found Trayvon and Trayvon was not cooperative?

What would a reasonable person have done in Trayvon’s situation? We know he knew he was being followed because that is what he told his girlfriend, when she called him moments before he was shot. We know he was afraid because he ran away from George Zimmerman.

Even if George Zimmerman did not start the physical confrontation, which I suspect he did, he still could not use deadly force in self-defense unless the objective facts and circumstances were such that a reasonable person in that situation would have used deadly force to prevent being killed or suffering serious bodily injury.

Perhaps George Zimmerman should have asked someone that night for directions to the house of the reasonable man.

I do not see a reasonable person doing anything George Zimmerman did that night up to and including his effort to find Trayvon. Nevertheless, this is not my judgment to make.

We have a legal system to decide what happened and what to do about it. We have due process of law with an adversarial system presided over by judges and we have juries to decide what happened. We will have to be patient and wait and see what happens.

In the meantime, we can wonder and while we wonder, we can conduct a diligent search for the reasonable man.

As an aside, why does our president believe he has and should exercise the power to unilaterally decide to kill someone just because he believes that person is a terrorist.

What is reasonable about that?


Obama’s Vile Assassination Doctrine

March 7, 2012

President Obama’s assassination doctrine is a blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment and an insult to everyone who believes in due process of law, the rule of law, and the Constitution. No one is above the law, especially the President. That he would think and proclaim otherwise, says volumes about his arrogance and ignorance.

Attorney General Eric Holder delivered a speech at the Northwestern University School of Law purporting to justify the assassination doctrine as an acceptable form of non-judicial process that has never been reviewed, much less approved, by a court of law. Worse, the administration refuses to share and discuss the legal memorandum upon which Mr. Holder and Mr. Obama rely in claiming the assassination power.

As with everything else in this secretive administration, we are supposed to shut-up and trust them. I refuse to do so.

Support for the death penalty in this country has declined substantially due to the hundreds of innocent people wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. Why would anyone think that the President should be trusted to get it right when he targets someone for assassination, if our criminal justice system and its vaunted trial by jury so often gets it wrong? What is to stop a president from targeting a political rival or a Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. for assassination?

Nothing. The person is assassinated and we the people are never provided with an explanation. Absent a whistleblower, and we all know how much this president loves and welcomes whistleblowers, we would never know the president ordered the hit, much less why. Indeed, one might reasonably suppose that he or she would be next, if they asked too many questions.

I am truly disgusted and alarmed beyond words by this development. Under no circumstances will I vote for Barack Obama or any other candidate who supports his assassination doctrine.


%d bloggers like this: