Tag: Obama administration
Charlie Savage, who when he worked for the Boston Globe did magnificent journalism in exposing the extensive use of signing statements by the Bush administration, has a piece on the front page titled Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen. The public editor, Arthur Brisbane, devotes his Sunday column to the topic as well, under the title The Secrets of Government Killing.
There are several issues of importance in this matter. The first is that the administration has authorized the killing of American citizens not in ordinary acts of war and not even in a true combat zone, but in what can only be called a targeted assassination. The second, perhaps of even more significance, is that the authorization was granted by a memorandum that has even now not been disclosed to the American people, you know, the "We, the people of the United States" who are the legitimate sovereigns of this nation on whose behalf the government is supposed to be acting.
I do not propose to fully go through either piece - that is why I have provided the links. I do wish to explore a few aspects of the issue and fully intend to offer my own thoughts, which will be neither complimentary towards or supportive of this administration.
Others here are far more knowledgeable than am I on energy issues. People like A Siegel, Jerome a Paris and Meteor Blades have been on this topic since before the first Yearly Kos convention in Las Vegas in 2006.
This is an issue as important as any we face. It certainly connects with my concerns about public education.
So this morning I find myself impelled to bring attention to Jackson's op ed, to explore the related issues, and if possible to make an argument as broadly as possible about why an appropriate national energy policy is of immediate and critical necessity.
Cole is on the left of legal thoughts. Disclosure: I have once been a guest in his home more almost two decades ago when he hosted a Tikkun magazine salon which featured Rabbi Michael Lerner. At that time Cole told me he was an adherent of Critical Legal Studies. Having said that, and also acknowledged that I am not a lawyer, I found his op ed both useful and troubling, which is why I both urge you to read and ponder his words, and invite you to explore my reaction to the issues he raises.