Elliott C. Back: Internet & Technology

Obama wasn’t content to rest up after his illegal assassination of Osama bin Laden back in May, this time stepping up his game to take out American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki with a predator drone / Hellfire missile in Yemen. The audacity of conducting public assassinations on the territory of sovereign nations aside, the New York Times picks right up on the issue of due process:

The strike appeared to be the first time in the American-led war on terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that an American citizen had been deliberately killed by American forces, a step that has raised contentious constitutional issues in the United States. It was also the second high-profile killing of an Al Qaeda leader in the past five months under the Obama administration[.]

The White House decision to make Mr. Awlaki a top priority to be hunted down and killed was controversial, given his American citizenship.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which fought unsuccessfully in the American court system to challenge the government’s legal justification for its so-called targeted killings program, which was used to take aim at Mr. Awlaki, condemned that program in reaction to the news of Mr. Awlaki’s death. “As we’ve seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts,” Jameel Jaffer, the A.C.L.U.’s deputy legal director, said in a statement.

For what it’s worth, Foreign Policy’s blog agrees that Anwar was a US citizen due an appropriate trial. The correct course of action would have been extradition from Yemen to the US for trial.

The protests this weekend on Wall Street have led to an NYPD blockade of much of the NYSE immediate area, leaving residents unable to freely walk the streets without having to pass through illegal NYPD checkpoints and show ID and proof of residence, and discouraging NYC tourists from visiting the historic area. The New York Times writes in Wall Street Protest Begins, With Demonstrators Blocked:

[T]he demonstrators found much of their target off limits on Saturday as the city shut down sections of Wall Street near the New York Stock Exchange and Federal Hall well before their arrival. By 10 a.m., metal barricades manned by police officers ringed the blocks of Wall Street between Broadway and William Street to the east. (In a statement, Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s chief spokesman said, “A protest area was established on Broad Street at Exchange Street, next to the stock exchange, but protesters elected not to use it.”)

The area blocked off by the police is approximately all of Wall Street from Broadway to William:

I am personally a bit irritated at the NYPD for stepping all over the 1st Amendment, which grants protesters the right to peaceful assembly:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The police barricades make it annoying to come and go on Wall Street; having 700-1200 protesters would crowd things as well, so it’s six of one half a dozen of the other. The only thing about the latter scenario is that I would able to go home feeling proud that Americans are standing up for their rights, rather than feeling like that the police state is already upon us and there’s nothing we can do about it.

I spoke to one of the police offers last night and asked him if the police action was constitutional. He asked if wanted “protesters breaking things and wrecking your home.” I said I didn’t, but they had the right to come protest, at which point the officer said it wasn’t worth his time talking to a wiseass. Oh well….

You can follow the progress of the protest on Twitter tags #DayOfRage, #TakeWallStreet and #OccupyWallSt. Gothamist also has a nice gallery of photos, the Daily Mail rag as well.

So I have an interesting story to tell about Duane Reade. I wasn’t feeling well at work today and thought that a nicotine fix might help, so I ambled over to a nearby Duane Reade to buy a pack of cigarettes . This is usually a straightforward process:

1. Identify the brand and variety of pack you’d like
2. Present government ID indicating you are 18 years or older
3. Pay for your vice

Today was special; the shop assistant kept looking back and forth between my AZ Driver’s License and me. Trying to be helpful, I said “I was born XX/YY/1984″ so she could find it on the card (I assumed she wasn’t familiar with the layout). I also said, “yes, it really does expire in 2049!” Here’s a partly redacted photo of my government ID:

AZ, legit, government-issued ID

The Duane Reade teller became very nervous and said, “I’m not going to sell these to you. If anything happens, I could lose my job.” I asked her, “Are you saying this ID’s fake?” She said, “No, I’m not saying that, but I don’t know anything about IDs from Arizona, so I’m not going to sell to you.” I asked to speak to a manager, but unfortunately hers was not around at the time, so I’ll have to save that for another day.

But procedurally, I’m just confused. Doesn’t it work, in the US, when you are selling things that you’re required to ask for ID for, that you ask for ID, verify that is isn’t expired, and that the birthdate puts the person in the acceptable range? I feel like the Duane Reade teller went off-policy today, either through stupidity, or ignorance of the script she was supposed to follow.

And on the upside, I don’t have a pack of cigarettes to smoke, which is great for my health and saves me $10 or whatever the current vice tax is.

Update: I emailed Duane Reade for clarification on their policy regarding the sale of tobacco products, and have been assigned case #160594. Will update when it comes!