home

Classified Drone and Targeted Killing Memo Released

Via Michael Isikoff at NBC News, here is the 16 page DOJ white paper titled "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force." Isikoff writes:

It concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The paper has an expanded definition of threat. [More...]

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.

There is a three part test for targeted killing. In addition to the (not so) imminent threat factor, there is:

  • capture of the target must be “infeasible, and
  • the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.”

But Isikoff says there is also an expanded meaning for whaen a capture is "infeasible" -- it includes undue risk to U.S. personnel attempting the capture.

It states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.

The ACLU blasts the paper:

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU.... “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen.....t the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

In particular, Jaffer said, the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.”

< Italy Reinstates Convictions and Orders Prison for Ex-CIA Agents | Monday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I wonder how many people here would approve (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 10:07:35 PM EST
    of this if Dick Cheney was the "informed, high-level" official of the U.S. government who was in charge of determining which American citizen could be terminated without trial.

     

    What should be obvious is that (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 06:55:06 AM EST
    there aren't enough checks on executive power.  With a DOJ that is happy, apparently, to write memos and letters to enable the president to do what he wants, and a Congress that pretty much gets told to pound sand when and if it objects or seeks more information, the sky's the limit.  And the people?  Does anyone really think we actually matter anymore?  The electoral solution isn't really a solution when both sides are on the same side.

    Some people are still apparently suffering from the mistaken belief that Democrats will exercise their power more wisely and humanely than Republicans, but I have no idea why they would think that, I really don't.

    Especially when you look at the total picture - the spying, the loss of privacy, the extra-judicial killings, indefinite detention - all of it going unchecked, how is this not authoritarianism?  

    I guess as long as most people can just keep going about their daily lives, with no apparent change to what they still believe is their freedom, those in power will happily take that as permission to keep doing whatever they want.

    Parent

    This cycle of as long as my guy is taking away (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:34:11 AM EST
    my rights and assuming the power to decide which American he can kill without trail needs to end before we lose everything we hold dear as Americans. If you ask most Republicans to think of the worst Democrat president, VP or cabinet member they can image and ask themselves do they want them to have these expanded powers, the answer would be "No." If you ask most Democrats if they would be willing to give Cheney or some Republican that may be even worse these powers, the answer would be "No." Yet, somehow as long as my guy has these powers they are just fine and dandy. There is every chance that sometime in the not too distant future we will find out how big of a mistake giving approval of these expanded powers was.

    "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." James Madison


    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:02:38 AM EST
    that is of course not what I said.  I responded to your speculation.  my original point was that if it is wrong it is wrong and no more of less wrong based on the nationality of the target which seems to be the position of some people.

    beyond the hand wringing what would you suggest we do?

    Parent

    I think MOBlue was responding to this: (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:13:45 AM EST
    I do not believe there is any agenda here that in any way approaches the neocon insanity of Cheney and personally I do not believe that Obama would take or allow to be taken to the extent he has control any action like this lightly. I have no doubt that the people who make these decisions will take the weight of them to their graves and I thank god that it is not my responsibility.  and sitting in judgement in front of my computer seems a little to easy.

    Perhaps you can see where others took your comment to mean that Obama's not Cheney and would take all of this more seriously.

    Parent

    thank you for again pointing out the obvious ann (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:25:25 AM EST
    allow me to do the same:

    this

    personally I do not believe that Obama would take or allow to be taken to the extent he has control any action like this lightly.

    is not this

    as long as my guy is taking away my rights and assuming the power to decide which American he can kill without trail

    it is an interpretation of it.  so what, beyond hand wringing and brest pounding, should be do?

    Parent

    I think it's a distinction without a (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:45:45 AM EST
    difference; you trust Obama more than you did Cheney, so the takeaway appears to be that if he decides to do X, Y or Z, it must be okay, because he was more thoughtful and careful and serious about it.

    As for what we should do about it, I think the options there are getting fewer and fewer; the government has shown increasing intolerance for dissent, with increasing negative consequences for the dissenter.  That probably means we should be more vocal in greater numbers, but I sense you are more inclined to shrug your shoulders and resign yourself to whatever your trusted leaders decide.

    Parent

    I don't see why one ... (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:44:39 PM EST
    should trust Obama any more than anyone else.  He's already killed American citizens, including a minor.  And according the NYT there are non-American minors on Obama's kill list.

    Let's take the whole "drone" issue out of the equation.  It seems to confuse people.

    An American president is ordering the killing of American citizens without due process.

    That's what's happening.  And, if we allow that, what's next?

    Parent

    Great point (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:28:12 PM EST
    It would be no better if he sent in Delta Team Six to capture or kill someone. I guess the difference is that they could have a primarily capture mission, whereas all the drone can do is kill.

    Parent
    so (2.67 / 3) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:45:53 AM EST
    beyond hand wringing nothing, got it.

    I will leave that to you.

    Parent

    We will all have to work hard (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:14:57 PM EST
    To get those who we can trust with such power elected.  It is a bit of THE SAME AS IT EVER WAS :)

    Parent
    I personally would prefer that (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:22:52 PM EST
    that that power was deemed unconstitutional and therefore illegal. I do not trust anyone to have that type of unrestricted and unregulated power.

    Parent
    How do you protect the nation (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 10:00:55 PM EST
    From terrorists who decide to hole up in failed states whether they be considered American citizens or not?  What has been done isn't illegal and those who argue against what Obama has decided to do have no other workable remedy.  The President IS responsible for the safety of this nation and all that that entails.

    Parent
    Well that is your opinion (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 10:27:25 PM EST
    It is one that I strongly disagree with. I think these actions are completely unconstitutional. IMO you do not protect the citizens of this country by giving the president or someone he delegates the unrestricted right to kill them without any judicial process or oversight. According to this paper it allows the president to kill someone even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S. Basically it allows them to kill someone if a designated person decides that maybe perhaps sometime in the future they could be a threat. Or they can kill someone because they "chose" to have the wrong father. If you do not see the danger in allowing this to happen, then there is not much more I can say.

    Parent
    What do you disagree with exactly? (2.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:59:03 AM EST
    It sounds like you disagree with protecting the nation.  If you don't disagree with protecting the nation, how would you do that?

    Parent
    I do not agree that the government (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 04:50:24 AM EST
    is protecting the nation or its citizens with these actions. A secret program with no oversight or judicial review is not necessary to protect the nation.  

    You are not protecting the nation when you give any individual the authority to disregard the most basic constitutional rights of its citizens.

    There are absolutely no safeguards on this program. How are you going to guarantee that this president or some president in the future is not going kill innocent people or misuse this program?

    BTW, your argument is not enhanced when you  include strawmen like

    It sounds like you disagree with protecting the nation.

    To me that is just a tactic that the Republicans developed and used when they did not have any legitimate debating points. I will not play that game with you.

       

    Parent

    So what should have been instead? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:51:04 AM EST
    One could argue this same thing w/the 2nd Amend. (none / 0) (#65)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:12:44 AM EST
    You are not protecting the nation when you give any individual the authority to disregard the most basic constitutional rights of its citizens

    and yet you are ok w/it w/r/t to guns.

    Parent

    Yes, a person could argue that and many do (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:36:30 AM EST
    I am not advocating for the government to eliminate the right to own a gun. I don't want to take away the right of citizens to own guns. I advocate for what IMO are responsible regulations that would save lives. You may disagree and believe that allowing people to own military style weapons that have the capacity to kill a large number of people within minutes is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. I do not believe that.

    Here I am advocating for the government to adhere to the checks and balances put into the Constitution to protect the lives and freedoms of its citizens.

    You can advocate for eliminating the constitutional right of a citizen to a fair trial or for the right of this president or any future president to kill a citizen without any due process if you chose. You may think it is a good idea to give any president the authority to kill people based on whatever secret criteria they choose to use and protect themselves from any and all review of their decision. I think this is a horrible and dangerous policy. I chose to oppose it as I firmly believe it is unconstitutional.
     

    Parent

    Advocating none of that (none / 0) (#72)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:38:28 AM EST
    My point was you are using a strict interpretation. If so, doesn't the president have the right?

    Parent
    Possibly you didn't read both my comments (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:56:58 AM EST
    Let me repost my second comment to you just in case you missed it.

    BTW, unlike Obama's program to kill citizens (none / 0) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:22:02 AM CST
    without due process, if regulations are changed regarding gun ownership, those changes will be enacted by Congress and subject to judicial review. IOW no one person in the executive branch will be determining or suspending constitutional rights.

    At no time have I advocated that regulations on gun ownership be dictated by presidential decree.

    No, as I have stated, I do not believe that the president has the right to determine or suspend constitutional rights. I do not know how to state it any stronger than I have. The whole idea of having our type of government, the whole idea of having a Constitution is that no individual gets to decide what's an exception or make changes to it.

    Parent

    Constitutional Question (none / 0) (#77)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:29:22 AM EST
    I did read your post, I understand you don't believe the president has that right.  What if the person is guilty of treason?

    Constutition Section. 3:


    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    No need to go to court to prove someone is guilty of treason.

    18 USC § 2381 - Treason:


    Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    No argument Al-Qaeda and it's affiliates are at least enemies, right?

    Article II Section 3:

    He {The President} shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

    Considering all of this, how can he not have the right constitutionally?  Morally, I agree we shouldn't just kill people w/o giving them a change to answer for their crimes, but it seems the Constitution and the law is pretty clear on what the president is able to do, in spite of claims of killing "citizens".

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:40:18 AM EST
    ...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...

    What about the (laws)Amednments pertaining to due process?  Isn't that pretty clear the the President is supposed to uphold those too?

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#81)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    but it seems clear the threshold is pretty low to declare someone guilty of treason.  I might have misread an article above on whether testimony in court is needed.  If it is, seems real easy to have two military analysts testify in a FISA court, have a citizen convicted of treason and that's it.

    Parent
    Actually, no (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 12:11:15 PM EST
    It's extremely difficult to convict someone of treason - the framers wanted it that way, because, let's face it, only a handful of years before they wrote the Constitution, they themselves committed treason. It's a very high standard to prove treason.

    That's why, in 2006, it was big news when the US brought the first treason case on over 50 years against Adam Yahiye Gadahn.

    Parent

    Once convicted, can the convicted (none / 0) (#86)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 12:13:46 PM EST
    be killed?  Is that enshrined in US Law?

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#87)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 12:17:04 PM EST
    per Wiki:

    On the same day, Gadahn was indicted based on the testimony of the FBI case agent E.J. Hilbert II, in the Southern Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California by a federal grand jury for the capital crime of treason for aiding an enemy of the United States (i.e. Al-Qaeda).


    Parent
    So? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 12:20:14 PM EST
    An indictment isn't a determination of guilt.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 12:19:16 PM EST
    Yes

    Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    I think the phrase that has been overlooked is the phrase "is guilty" - not "presumed guilty" or "determined guilty by the President".

    Parent

    No person shall be "convicted" (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:57:32 AM EST
    of treason. Who convicts the person or persons of treason? Please provide me with something other than your opinion that no court is required to determine treason when Section 3 references an open court in the verbiage. Or if you are unable to provide a link for that, please provide me with something in the Constitution that allows the President to be judge and jury in cases of treason. Also it would be helpful if you would provide the exact names and background of the two witnesses who testified to the avert act of each of the 3 people killed, transcripts of their testimony and what was done to determine their reliability.

     

    Parent

    Gov't Secrecy (none / 0) (#84)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 12:10:28 PM EST
    Is a different discussion.  We were talking about whether the president is given, by the Constitution, the ability to kill a "citizen".

    You'll note in my reply to JBINDC that I stated I may have misread needing the two witnesses to testify in court.  However, that doesn't change the fact that the bar is set pretty low.....in the Constitution.

    Seems to me all he needs to do is have a FISA court hearing and that's it.

    Parent

    We were discussing whether or not the (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:01:47 PM EST
    president has the right to order the killing of a citizen without due process. Nothing you have posted indicates that the president has that right.  

    From every account, including statements from members of the administration, the president ordered the killing of at least 3 American citizens without the involvement of any court. In fact the white paper indicates he can make or delegate that decision without any need for court involvement.

    BTW, government secrecy in this matter is not another point. Please note the words OPEN COURT in Section 3 of the Constitution that you so kindly quoted for us. By any reasonable definition an open court would not be a secret court. A closed FISA court would also not meet the requirements of being an open court.  

    Parent

    This is what the government contends (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:18:56 PM EST
    According to the white paper, the government has the authority to carry out targeted killings of U.S. citizens without presenting evidence to a judge before the fact or after, and indeed without even acknowledging to the courts or to the public that the authority has been exercised. Without saying so explicitly, the government claims the authority to kill American terrorism suspects in secret.

    So maybe we could return to discussing what the president is actually doing and debate that rather than changing the subject.
     

    Parent

    No need to go to court? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 12:07:12 PM EST
    You're kind of adding fuel to the did-they-teach-civics-in-your-school fire, it seems.

    Given the list of those charged and tried for treason - among them, Aaron Burr (tried but not convicted), John Brown (convicted), and the Rosenbergs (convicted), you might need to re-think your conclusion.

    There were clues in the language of the Constitution that should have led you to a different conclusion: "convicted" and "testimony" and "open court."

    Parent

    Did they have civics classes when you (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:15:27 AM EST
    went to school? The reason I'm asking is that when I went to school I was taught that our government was set up to have 3 equal and separate branches of government. I was also taught that it was set up that way by the founders so that no one person (i.e. the president) has the right to eliminate the rights of the people of this country. From what I was taught the founders could not have been clearer. No one person, not even the president, gets to decide who doesn't have rights under the Constitution.

    So yes, I agree that I am using a strict interpretation and that strict interpretation does not give the president the right you seem to think he should have.

    Parent

    Yeah they did (none / 0) (#78)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:31:12 AM EST
    no need to be a smart-aleck.  See my comment above professor.

    Parent
    Actually I wasn't being a smart-aleck (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:38:49 AM EST
    I was curious as to why you would think any strict interpretation of the Constitution would allow the president to have those rights.

    Parent
    BTW, unlike Obama's program to kill citizens (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:22:02 AM EST
    without due process, if regulations are changed regarding gun ownership, those changes will be enacted by Congress and subject to judicial review. IOW no one person in the executive branch will be determining or suspending constitutional rights.

    At no time have I advocated that regulations on gun ownership be dictated by presidential decree.

    Parent

    Here's a radical idea: maybe (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:46:25 AM EST
    some thought should be given to ending the vicious cycle we've been thrust into without our permission, and which the powers that be seem to be determined to perpetuate.  

    You know, the cycle that began with the attacks of 9/11, which then became the basis for two wars, some horrendous legislation, executive overreaching, refusal to submit to oversight by the Congress, indefinite detention, black site prisons and rendition, torture, the constant invocation of state secrets in order to stymie any legislative or judicial recourse for those objecting to the accretion of power, or those subjected to the policies themselves, the refusal to hold anyone accountable for any of it, abandonment of core democratic principles, drone strikes, extra-judicial killings - all of which have served to incubate and grow more anger and more resentment and more terrorism - which we then use to justify continuing to do all of the things we started doing after we were attacked, plus whatever new ways we can dream up because the old stuff isn't working.

    Disagree with protecting the nation?  No.  Disagree with the circular logic that ignores that we are perpetuating the conditions that make us vulnerable?  Absolutely.

    We are no safer; we are a lot less free.  

    What should we do instead?  Stop the drone killings.  Stop issuing kill orders without oversight or due process.  Close Guantanamo.  Start practicing what we preach as "the world's greatest democracy."

    There will always be those who wish to do us harm; it's time we made sure that the threats stopped coming from within, from people who use "keeping us safe" as a shield to acquire power and undermine our freedom.

    Parent

    Anne, I agree with you that we (2.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:50:21 AM EST
    Must have a respectful foreign policy.  We didn't do anything that earned us being attacked on 9/11 though.  If so what was it and why did Al Qaeda attack so many other people and nations?  Was the whole world really deserving of what they were doing to it?  Did everyone really earn that?

    Parent
    Please don't mistake my desire for (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:08:33 AM EST
    this country to walk the walk when it comes to preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution and the democracy whose survival depends on it, with believing we deserved to be attacked, and don't use those attacks to justify US policy that turns the Constitution on its head and makes us more vulnerable from without and within.

    I'd really like to stop cringing when I hear our leaders wax rhapsodic about our great democracy, ya know?  


    Parent

    Our policy is supposed to keep the (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:07:09 AM EST
    nation safe though too.  And being attacked is going to affect policy.  To pretend anything different is practicing intellectual dishonesty.

    Parent
    It's a balance (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by sj on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:17:22 AM EST
    With safety on one end of the teeter-totter and freedom on the other.  Frankly, I don't feel one bit safer from terrorists today than I did on September 10, 2001, but I feel much less free.

    Truth be told, with the strangling of our freedoms, I feel more danger coming from our own government than I do from terrorists.

    Parent

    Your response seems more (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    realistic than some.  I agree that my rights are being violated in the name of national security.  Going warrantless is creepy.  I do feel safer from terrorism though, not that given the odds that any single one of us would be a victim.  Terrorist attacks do more than just kill and maim the few who caught in the path, they instill fear and damage the psyche of the population, and that is the point, that is what their ultimate goal is.  They have to be addressed at some point.

    Parent
    True (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by sj on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:05:52 AM EST
    Terrorist attacks do more than just kill and maim the few who caught in the path, they instill fear and damage the psyche of the population
    And they should be addressed as they crimes they are.  Not as a reason to shackle the citizens the government purports to serve.

    Parent
    I have never felt either (none / 0) (#96)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 08:48:15 AM EST
    unsafe or unfree(yes I know, not really a word).  I would like the government to mind it's own business regarding my body and who my friends and loved ones fall in love with and marry.  I don't fear terrorists, still, I would rather the government not take away my freedom in the name of keeping me safe. So far I don't think there is a big FBI file labeled "TERESAINPA", but I could be wrong.
     I remember that we ARE the government and we get what we deserve because we allow the people we put in charge to play divide and conquer. Always, the right must hate the left, must hate the right must hate the left.....
    It dawns on me that you have a lot in common with the "gun nuts" who don't trust the government and feel they should be able to arm themselves against the possibility that the government runs amok. I know some of these people and in truth it is not really the out of control government they worry about, it is the lack of any government in a time of crisis and knowing the military will be too busy serving the needs of the elite to worry about the people, that motivates them to be ready to form a militia.....but that's besides the point.
    What is your solution to a government which would take away your freedom in the name of  fighting terrorism?  How far would that government have to go before you rebel and would be willing to overthrow it? Do you think elections are enough to rid ourselves of out of control authoritarians, either left or right leaning?

    Parent
    Who's pretending that being attacked (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:20:27 AM EST
    isn't going to affect policy?  

    But if the only thing you're considering when formulating policy is protecting us from attack, you're missing the larger picture, which includes looking at whether the policies weaken the structures that underpin our freedom, and whether the policies are helping incubate terrorism.

    Have we been attacked again?  No.  But, please, look at what we have lost in the meantime.  Look at the military/intelligence behemoth that has grown up around the events of 12 years ago, and which is less accountable than ever.  Look at how much more power has accrued to those in charge, and how much less we have to say about it.

    And that attitude - that no one has to answer to the people, that the ends justify the means - has bled over into banking and finance and other areas, with predictable results.  

    What I want to know is, who keeps us safe from those in power in this country, who think they can do what they want, and never have to answer for it?

    Parent

    I agree with you on all these points (2.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:19:55 PM EST
    You only seem to know what you don't want though when addressing terrorism.  You have no specifics on how to effectively address terrorists, I don't think just being nice to them is going to be all that effective.

    Parent
    Tracy, you really need to stop (5.00 / 6) (#95)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:13:08 PM EST
    trying to turn what I'm saying into something I haven't said so you can get in your little digs; nowhere in anything I've written have I suggested we be nice to terrorists.  

    What I have said I want is for our leaders to stop trashing the Constitution in the mistaken belief that abandoning the tenets of our democracy is the best way to deal with threats.  

    I'm not a counter-terrorism expert, but I don't have to be to know that there's no reason or justification for going outside the bounds of the law.  I don't have to be a counter-terrorism expert to know that precedents we're setting in that arena have already bled over to the domestic side, and will continue to do so if we don't demand a higher standard.

    You can - in true christine fashion - keep riding me for not providing you with a plan of action for dealing with terrorism, as if my failing to do so renders my opinions worthless, but I'd rather be on the side that believes we need to observe the rule of law, than on the side you seem to be taking, of finding excuses and justifications for not doing that.

    Parent

    While I was not addressing my comment (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:33:02 AM EST
    specifically to you, from this statement it appeared that while you did not want someone like Cheney to have these powers you are much more willing for Obama to have them.

    as for me I am quite comfortable considering a persons history and agenda in the making of decisions like these.
    ...
    I do not believe there is any agenda here that in any way approaches the neocon insanity of Cheney and personally I do not believe that Obama would take or allow to be taken to the extent he has control any action like this lightly..

    What should we do?

    Stop giving even tentative approval of these actions.

    What I would prefer is if people of all political parties stop approving of these actions when their politicians do them and strongly protest them regardless of who is taking away our 4th amendment rights or expanding the executive powers to the point they can assume the right to execute someone without trial. I would prefer for opposition to this to be addressed in every paper in the country and on every street. This will not happen when Republicans accept these measures because they are sure that someone like Bush will not abuse them or when Democrats accept these measures being expanded even further because they are sure someone like Obama will not abuse them.

    Parent

    Man my poor proof reading is exceeded only by (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:05:48 AM EST
    my poor typing. Should read:

     which American he can kill without trial

    Of course there may well be a time when they will kill an American without any trail either. That information may become as secret as all the other super secret information.

    Parent

    probably not many (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 10:23:18 PM EST
    as for me I am quite comfortable considering a persons history and agenda in the making of decisions like these.  there are plenty of statements and actions in Dicks history that would color any opinion of his judgement in life or death situations.  

    I do not believe there is any agenda here that in any way approaches the neocon insanity of Cheney and personally I do not believe that Obama would take or allow to be taken to the extent he has control any action like this lightly. I have no doubt that the people who make these decisions will take the weight of them to their graves and I thank god that it is not my responsibility.  and sitting in judgement in front of my computer seems a little to easy.

    Parent

    Obama leaves offfice in less than 4 years (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 10:32:25 PM EST
    You have no idea who will be given the ability to put American citizens on a kill list in the future. In 4 years, eight years or some time thereafter, the person or persons who are given the power to make this decision could in fact be worse than Cheney.

    Parent
    Good Point (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 10:13:02 AM EST
    This kind of stuff is organic, it starts with a seed and grows from administration to administration.  This is easily traceable back to the previous administration, but I bet if you really looked into it, it would go back to Nixon or even further.

    And it's actually quit humorous for someone to defend the people who maybe didn't devise it, but certainly enabled it, and have no qualms about using it.  And surely, as you mentioned, the next crew will not only continue with the madness, but put their own spin onto it.  Before you know it, we got secret prisons for torture and initiating two decade long wars that were unprovoked.  Followed by assassinating American citizens who haven't actually even been accused of a crime, much less convicted of one.  The next step is obvious, doing the same garbage on our own soil.  And to be honest, I wouldn't be one damn bit surprised if they aren't already doing it.

    So to answer you original question, it's worse for me when the people I voted for commit these kinds of acts.  It's easy to blame the dummies who elected Bush and Co, but for me it's a much harder pill to swallow knowing I am one of the dummies that voted for the aholes currently doing it.  

    Or worse, knowing that no matter who I support, the garbage isn't going away, which actually, in some way, forces me to support it via my vote.

    Parent

    that would be after Hillary I guess (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 10:40:40 PM EST
    but seriously, I guess I will worry about it then.  the truth is there doesnt seem to be much we can do about it in any case. that is if you believe the judge.  and she seems to have given it some thought.  any ideas you have are welcome.  

    currently there are lots of other things I am more worried about.

    Parent

    You do realize that the Republicans in (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 11:04:49 PM EST
    several key states are looking at ways to change the way their state award the electoral votes so that the Republicans can win the majority of the electoral votes even when their candidate does not come close to getting the majority of the votes in their state. So I wouldn't put my faith in having a Democratic president. Instead, you might be looking at a far right president.

    If you approve of the process now, then you are giving approval of the process in the future regardless of who has the power to decide which people to be put on the kill list.

    As to basing your approval on a judge giving some thought to the decision let me remind you that the judges on the Supreme Court gave some thought to their decision when they decided Bush v Gore and Citizens United.
     

    Parent

    like I said (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 06:03:22 AM EST
    as far as the electoral thing, that is dead in every state but MI.  and it will be dead there.  it wont happen.  of if it does it will cause a backlash of beyond epic proportions

    Parent
    Which doesn't address the main point (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 10:56:16 AM EST
    If you approve of the process now, then you are giving approval of the process in the future regardless of who has the power to decide which people to be put on the kill list.

    All this stuff about Republicans changing the electoral process is white noise in this discussion - it just doesn't matter.  

    The fact of the matter is, there will be a Republican president again in the near future - whether its 2016, 2020. 2024, etc. who will have these powers.  And if they are in a second term, are they really going to be concerned about "backlash of epic proportions"?

    Parent

    from 1/29 (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 06:23:10 AM EST
    Lansing -- Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville said Tuesday he doesn't necessarily agree with a proposal to change the rule under which Michigan awards its 16 electoral votes to the presidential candidate winning the state's popular vote.

    Rep. Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township, said last week he planned to bring back a 2012 bill that would switch to a system by which the state divvies up 14 of its electoral votes according to which candidate gets the most votes in each congressional district. The last two votes would go to the winner of the statewide vote.

    "I don't know that it's broken, so I don't know Lthat I want to fix it," said Richardville, R-Monroe.

    There are signs that talk of such a strategy is moderating among Republican politicians.

    After initially seeming to say he was open to the plan, Gov. Rick Snyder disparaged it this week in a Bloomberg TV interview.

    From The Detroit News:



    Parent
    btw (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 06:31:45 AM EST
    I do remember reading that the wingnuts in PA are "considering" it to.  everything I said about MI goes double for PA.  it wont happen.

    Parent
    PA (none / 0) (#97)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 08:58:16 AM EST
    is a blue state in presidential politics.  No way is that happening here.  There are too many powerful democrats and too many powerful unions.  The blow back would be massive if the republicans tried to get that mess passed here.

    Parent
    You will worry about it then? (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by sj on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 11:16:50 AM EST
    Well then if you're not inclined to take a principled stand on this because of, you know, actual principle, how about you leave the commenting to those who do care?  

    This is only partial snark.  When my son was young and we were living hand to mouth, the last thing on my mind was the Constitution and personal liberty.  However, the mother of a very good friend was very invested.  She was arrested a number of times for civil disobedience.  

    My friend said that her view was that she had the time and the resources at that point in her life and she felt it was her turn to help ensure we actually had a civil society.  While others, like me, didn't have the energy or resources to do anything other than survive.  

    It was pondering that idea that led me to become involved in the Democratic Party as soon as I had bandwidth to do so.  Because I thought it at that point it was my turn to help ensure that we actually had a civil society.

    It's fine for you to worry about those other things.  They're probably important.  But it's arrogant in the extreme to be so dismissive of those to who are watching this line.  So back away graciously.

    Parent

    I agree, sj (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 01:49:03 PM EST
    I don't give a royal rat's patootie who is in charge, and what their Party is.  
    Wrong is wrong, whatever your political affiliation is.
    As I have said many times, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party left me."
    If it's wrong for the Republicans to do, it's wrong for the Democrats to do.  In fact, it is just wrong for anyone to do.
    Both parties and their partisans seem to think "Well, if my people do it, it's acceptable, but not if the other people do it."
    That is not the way I see it.
    The Constitution of the United States of America- I hardly knew ya'.  :-(

    Parent
    So, so true (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by sj on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 01:59:33 PM EST
    Wrong is wrong, whatever your political affiliation is.
    I don't want anybody to claim these powers or prerogatives.  I don't have a grey area about it at all.  Some people are so eager to feel safe that they'll hand back some personal freedoms and put restraints on others.  I do believe in protecting them from themselves because that's how to protect me and mine.  And my voice is the only tool I have to work with, really.

    Frankly, it is somehow even more horrible/chilling to me that a Democratic administration is claiming and using those prerogatives.  It's a perfect example of what you say:  that the Democratic Party left me.  I didn't leave it.

    Parent

    Perfectly Obama (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 10:32:43 PM EST
    Lacking even the slightest hint of free American imagination or creativity, it's just a bunch of brute bullsh*t amounting to nohting more than "we'll kill whoever we want, whenever we want, the Constitution can blow us."  Mafia level thinking. If a literal Howard Beale were to emerge, the gov't would find a way to "legally" assasinate him or her, too.  Everyone's ass meet the slippery slope.  And here we gooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!

    If you want (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:23:28 AM EST

    If you want to see the New York Times, WAPO, ABC, CBS, NBC, et al all raising a ruckus over this behavior and pressing legislators to actually do something about, then you need a Republican in the white house.  

    Parent
    I don't remember (none / 0) (#98)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:55:25 AM EST
    them raising much of a ruckus when Bush was in office.  The odd Op Ed writer did but he/she generally got ignored or ridiculed.

    Parent
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#109)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 06:03:26 PM EST
    .

    Perhaps you could offer an example of Bush targeting American citizens for death.

    .


    Parent

    Here's one example: (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 06:53:37 AM EST
    Sending thousands of American military personnel to be killed or injured into a useless war based on false pretenses.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, this is not "the memo" on (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:09:51 AM EST
    targeted killing, it is a white paper; those Senators who have seen this white paper are still calling for release of the actual memos used to justify targeted, extra-judicial killings.

    From Marcy:

    First, is it not the actual legal memos used to authorize the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and who knows who else. As Michael Isikoff notes in his story, the Senators whose job it is to oversee the Executive Branch -- even the ones on the Senate Intelligence Committee that are supposed to be read into covert operations -- are still demanding the memos, for at least the 12th time. The release of this white paper must not serve to take pressure off of the White House to release the actual memos.

    [snip]

    And there is abundant reason to believe that the members of the Senate committees who got this white paper aren't convinced it describes the rationale the Administration actually used. Just minutes after Pat Leahy reminded the Senate Judiciary Committee they got the white paper at a hearing last August, John Cornyn said this,

       Cornyn: As Senator Durbin and others have said that they agree that this is a legitimate question that needs to be answered. But we're not mere supplicants of the Executive Branch. We are a coequal branch of government with the Constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight and to legislate where we deem appropriate on behalf of our constituents. So it is insufficient to say, "pretty please, Mr. President. pretty please, Mr. Attorney General, will you please tell us the legal authority by which you claim the authority to kill American citizens abroad?" It may be that I would agree with their legal argument, but I simply don't know what it is, and it hasn't been provided. [my emphasis]

    As Marcy points out,

    This white paper admits the President claims he could kill an American solely on his inherent Article II powers. But that's not the argument laid out in the white paper.

    More chilling has to be this, from the ACLU:

    Even more problematic, the paper contends that the limits on the government's claimed authority are not enforceable in any court. ("There exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations.") According to the white paper, the government has the authority to carry out targeted killings of U.S. citizens without presenting evidence to a judge before the fact or after, and indeed without even acknowledging to the courts or to the public that the authority has been exercised. Without saying so explicitly, the government claims the authority to kill American terrorism suspects in secret.

    When the executive branch ices out the judicial and legislative branches, what is the resulting form of government?

    I wish the ACLU ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:04:22 PM EST
    had removed the phrase "terrorism suspect" from the statement.  Terrorism is not a term with any legal standing, and is so fungible as to be meaningless.  And add the word "suspect" to it and the meaninglessness rises to Olympian proportions.

    Parent
    Reason given for killing (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 10:04:05 AM EST
    16 year old US citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in a separate drone strike two weeks after killing his father: He didn't chose the right father.

    WASHINGTON -- A 16-year-old American boy killed in an Obama administration drone strike "should have [had] a far more responsible father," Obama campaign senior adviser Robert Gibbs says in a new video released by the group We Are Change.


    Wow! (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:10:16 PM EST
    That's a clear example of the attitude of the people making these decisions.

    Heartless, soulless, cavalier and probably pathological.

    Parent

    With apologies to Lewis Carroll (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 10:49:50 AM EST
    No, no!' said the Obama administration. `Sentence first -- verdict afterwards.'
    `Stuff and nonsense!' said the Constitution loudly. `The idea of having the sentence first!'
    `Hold your tongue!' said Obama, turning purple.
    `I won't!' said the ACLU.
    `Off with their heads!' he shouted at the top of his voice. Nobody moved.

    And I mean, nobody.

    Edward R. Murrow: "A nation of sheep - (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 02:05:55 PM EST
    - will beget a government of wolves."

    If the US government was drone striking Americans' (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:24:27 PM EST
    guns maybe we could get more people excited about it.

    Truer words were never spoken (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:08:23 PM EST
    Loud, continual nationwide protests declaring that military style weapons must be maintained in abundance under the false premise that they will protect the owners from government tyranny. Yet cheers, approval, acceptance or minimal protests when the government actually strips citizens of the right to constitutional protection from the government. {{sadly shakes head}}

    Parent
    I think there are a lot of people (2.00 / 4) (#99)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:05:50 AM EST
    on the left who would love that.  Get some drones out there blowing up the properties of right wing gun nuts and the resulting collateral damage and I think there are some people on the left who would cheer and say we were protecting America.

    I think you were talking about something else though, right?
    Unfortunately there is a lot of hypocrisy on both sides, we just can't see the other side as making sense.  There are people on the right who are adamant about their gun rights but not about being spied on by the Bush justice department.

    Parent

    This is an example (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by sj on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:25:42 AM EST
    of reasons 2 and 3 specified above and is not worth engaging.   I'm only explaining because you indicated that you didn't understand.


    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:34:20 AM EST
    Get some drones out there blowing up the properties of right wing gun nuts and the resulting collateral damage and I think there are some people on the left who would cheer and say we were protecting America.

    It's fun to make stuff up, huh?

    Parent

    Wow, do you really? (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 06:55:15 AM EST
    I think there are a lot of people (2.00 / 4) (#99)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:05:50 AM EST
    on the left who would love that.  Get some drones out there blowing up the properties of right wing gun nuts and the resulting collateral damage and I think there are some people on the left who would cheer and say we were protecting America.

    Because I haven't seen ANY evidence of such sentiment 'on the left' ANYWHERE.

    Parent

    Would like for Dawn Johnsen to weigh in on (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:15:57 AM EST
    on whether or not Obama "withholding from Congress and the public of legal interpretations by the [OLC] upsets the system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government." threatens the effective functioning of American democracy.

    During the Bush years, when Bush refused to disclose the memoranda from his Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that legally authorized torture, rendition, warrantless eavesdropping and the like, leading Democratic lawyers such as Dawn Johnsen (Obama's first choice to lead the OLC) vehemently denounced this practice as a grave threat, warning that "the Bush Administration's excessive reliance on 'secret law' threatens the effective functioning of American democracy" and "the withholding from Congress and the public of legal interpretations by the [OLC] upsets the system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government."

    But when it comes to Obama's assassination power, this is exactly what his administration has done. It has repeatedly refused to disclose the principal legal memoranda prepared by Obama OLC lawyers that justified his kill list. It is, right now, vigorously resisting lawsuits from the New York Times and the ACLU to obtain that OLC memorandum. In sum, Obama not only claims he has the power to order US citizens killed with no transparency, but that even the documents explaining the legal rationale for this power are to be concealed. He's maintaining secret law on the most extremist power he can assert. link



    Glad to see some outrage (2.33 / 3) (#46)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:47:00 PM EST
    I've been complaining about this for years.  We beat ourselves up over "torture" but killing Americans and non Americans via remote control doesn't raise any eyebrows.

    Never mind the thousands we've killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by more conventional means.

    War is done by proxy now and far too easy.

    Such a crock (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by sj on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 05:08:56 PM EST
    Maybe it doesn't "raise any eyebrows" in your crowd, but there has been lots of objections in mine.

    Parent
    Hardly a "crock" (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:03:56 AM EST
    The MSM and the non republican community made torture, detainees etc... a major issue, as well they should have.

    Once Bush was out all the fuss quieted down and Obama made lots of promises.  Some people were consistent but it would take a hyper partisan to deny that even while Obama kept most of the same programs even enhancing them in the case of drones the furor died down.

    I've never understood our drone policy under Bush or Obama.   They are a wonderful weapons tactically to support troops on the ground but the way we zoom them around to kill people without any warning and with tons of collateral damaged is simply horrible.  To me if an enemy is worth killing we should have to do it with some human interaction and risk of life on our part, meaning our own troops.

    It is simply to easy to kill with no chance of losing life on our side and without having to really know what happens after we've shot hell fire missiles from 30,000 feet.   It makes it too easy for our leaders no matter what party to take care of things painlessly on our end while inflicting horrible pain and suffering on the other end no different and in some cases worse then conventional warfare.

    Seymour Hersh put it well in a recent Fresh Air interview I listened to over the weekend.   Our military has an acronym for these types of thing called MOOTW (military operation other than war).    Truly a perverse term when you think that sure it's not war for our side because we don't get our hands dirty but it must sure seem like war when the children, wives, drivers and underlings are evaporated without warning as we "take out" a terrorist.

    This is what's happening on a daily basis under a democratic administration that ran in 2008 on a sense of moral superiority to the previous one.

    Parent

    The policy is worse than a crock (3.50 / 2) (#66)
    by sj on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:29:45 AM EST
    which isn't your problem.  But that wasn't what I was talking about.  I was talking about this:
    killing Americans and non Americans via remote control doesn't raise any eyebrows.
    To which I said this:
    Maybe it doesn't "raise any eyebrows" in your crowd, but there has been lots of objections in mine.

    And I repeat.  Your accusation of disinterest and acquiescence is a crock.

    Parent
    I'm only pointing out (2.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 02:12:24 PM EST
    The hypocrisy of this president and many of his supporters.

    I quote the president...

    We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable -- a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass.

    If you are the exception to the rule I appreciate your consistency but simply put since Obama became president it has become more acceptable to abuse American Power.

    Parent

    I don't disagree (3.50 / 2) (#91)
    by sj on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 02:25:14 PM EST
    with most of what you said.  Including the acquiescence of many of O's supporters.  I just take very, very, very strong exception to you conflating "many of O's supporters" with everyone who is "not-you" in order to make up some sort of rule to which I may be some sort of exception.  Tired of that sort of dishonesty.  

    So knock it off.

    Parent

    I am guessing Slado (2.00 / 1) (#100)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:17:29 AM EST
    is talking in general and not just about your little crowd. So what? That was worth a snit?
     SJ, stop the BS ratings.  You and and a few others are the only people here who do it.  What is the purpose?  Higher up you gave MT a 2 for no discernible reason.  Really, are you trying to enforce a liberal echo chamber here or something?  It just seems so petty.

    Parent
    duh... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by sj on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:21:24 AM EST
    of course Slado is talking generally.  He is using that classic logical fallacy known as the hasty generalization
    The fallacy is also known as the fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, generalization from the particular, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, law of small numbers, unrepresentative sample, and secundum quid. When referring to a generalization made from a single example it has been called the fallacy of the lonely fact[2] or the proof by example fallacy.[3

    MT's BS comment was

    It sounds like you disagree with protecting the nation.  If you don't disagree with protecting the nation, how would you do that?

    Because clearly if one wishes the government to obey the law one disagrees with protecting the nation.  Oy.

    I tend to downrate three things:  

    1. Obstinate stupid
    2. really, really bad logic
    3. Outright hostility or passive agressive hostility

    Addressing any of those things tends to be an exercise in futility.  Although I commend those how take on that task, I'm not interested in beating my head against a brick wall. That is the purpose.  

    The comments of yours that I've downrated tend to fall either into category 2 or 3.  You, on the other hand, downrate in retaliation.  Which is fine.  ::shrug:: Doesn't bother me a bit.

    Also, unlike you, I don't hold a grudge.  And I'll take you seriously the next time you comment.  Unless situation 1, 2 or 3 is again in evidence.

    Parent

    I guess if you had said (2.00 / 1) (#104)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:19:16 PM EST
    "doesn't raise any eyebrows among SOME people" you would have been okay.... here have a five for the hell of it.  Maybe we can get the management to add emoticons to this blog.  They're so much more fun than passing out ratings.

    Parent
    Of course, if you had bothered to read (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:34:31 PM EST
    the entire dialogue between Slado and sj, you might have realized they both clarified their comments; I guess it was more fun to take potshots with references to "your little crowd" and make other snide characterizations than to take in the entirety of the conversation.

    Pretty much how you roll most of the time; I'd consider the low-ratings approach if I thought it would make a difference, but something tells me you'd just go in the other direction, for spite.

    Seems like you're pretty familiar with "petty."

    Parent

    one of the more interesting parts (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 09:03:15 PM EST
    of this discussion for me is the emphasis - or seeming empohasis - on the fact the somehow its worse to kill an american citizen without a trial than it is to kill a citizen of any other country.

    Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen

    I have very conflicted feelings about this whole subject but I certainly think that if you are going to do it there is no reason americans should get a pass because they are americans.

    also (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 09:29:28 PM EST
    this amazing quote from the judge who ruled that the document may be kept secret makes me feel a bit better about being conflicted.

    I can only conclude that the government has not violated FOIA by refusing to turn over the documents sought in the FOIA requests, and so cannot be compelled by this court of law to explain in detail the reasons why its actions do not violate the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules -- a veritable catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret
    .

    Parent
    Here I Though... (none / 0) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 02:10:44 PM EST
    ...judges were suppose to sort out paradoxical situations that arise because of contradictory constraints and rules.  If a judge isn't willing to do it, who the F is ?

    Parent
    Sounds to me... (none / 0) (#40)
    by unitron on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 02:31:34 PM EST
    ...as though this particular judge would, if she thought it possible, but that the two conflicting sides here have equal weight and she's stuck with that, and unwilling to to decide based on personal opinion or desires.

    Parent
    Again... (none / 0) (#44)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:21:36 PM EST
    ...that is their job, settle conflicting legal disputes/conflicts in the law.  It's right in the title, judge.  It's why we have a judicial branch of government, to make decisions/settle disputes, from Judge Wapner to the 9 Justices of the SCOTUS.

    Parent
    to me as well (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:45:37 PM EST
    but clearly we are missing the point.  all is black and white.  there is no grey.

    repeat after me.  there is no grey.

    oh and we are terrorist sympathizers

    pffttttt. outta here

    Parent

    No passes. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 09:30:13 PM EST
    What they're announcing is that our policy is to knock over - to off - to whack - to take out - anybody we have reason to believe may be up to no good.

    American citizens have been coddled to believe that they have some constitutional rights - not granted by our government to people, aliens, from other lands.

    Well - forget it.
    This is the new America.
    Americans have as much a right to be blown away by the itchy fingers of the intelligence community as one of those foreign heathens.

    Gonna get me some guns.
    And a whole lot of skeet.
    I want in on this action.

    Parent

    I am sure there are people (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 09:32:41 PM EST
    your ability to live in a black and white world.


    Parent
    A black and white world? (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by sj on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 11:02:57 AM EST
    Seriously?  You think that government sactioned murder of an American citizen because someone says they believe that person is a terrorist is just a little grey area?

    I happen to have a problem with the idea that Constitutional Rights belong only to American citizens.  But putting that aside, what has been limned is that those rights are an idea.  And everyone has to buy into that idea if they are to exist at all.  And too many people think that the ideas are "quaint" or that they can be chipped away because of some sort of grey area.

    To me black and white is the only way to interpret Constitutional rights.  They exist -- or they don't.

    Parent

    oops (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 09:33:37 PM EST
    people who envy your ability to . . .

    Parent
    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 10:35:54 PM EST
    know about envy exactly.

    I"m just tickled pink that my very own government isn't going to waste anybody's time bringing charges, presuming innocence and all that folderol.

    That's just so, magna carta.

    Preventative nuclear war would be a real blast - oops. No pun intended. Seriously, we could wipe out a whole nation of suspects and be home for Morning Joe.

    This will make us safe. Very safe.
    Nobody is going to mess with us if we blow them up first.
    Them Ruskies, them Koreans in the North or is it the Southern ones... I forget. Nuke em both. That way we can be sure and safe.

    Those Canadians and Mexicans have been acting a little weird too lately. Can't nuke em unless the wind is just right.

    This is really progress towards safety, security and peace of mind.

    No, no!' said the Queen. `Sentence first -- verdict afterwards.'
    `Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. `The idea of having the sentence first!'
    `Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.
    `I won't!' said Alice.
    `Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.


    Parent
    I am conflicted also (none / 0) (#105)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:25:34 PM EST
    however, having to chose I would have to come down on the side of at the very least, we should expect our government to care more about us than the other guys.  It's the least they can do.

    Parent
    Not so brave new world. (none / 0) (#2)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 09:17:53 PM EST
    The condition that an operational leader present an `imminent' threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future," the memo states.

    This definition makes sense to me.

    When someone tells me that the delivery of my new t.v. is imminent, I can know that what that really means is that there is no clear evidence that I will receive delivery in the immediate future.
    OK.

    I think I'll try that when the phone company is on my back. I'll tell them that a check is imminent. Love it. This opens a whole new world of chicanery. I can't wait to try it out. Personal relations: "I really love you. Our marriage is imminent". Business relations: "Your promotion is imminent".

    On a more patriotic note, it is a step into the great wild west of our glorious past when we was slaughtering the indigenous population. As the good Book says, "Do unto others before they do it unto you."

    What the hell. You can tell by the way they look that they're up to something. They just don't look right. No point in capturing 'em. Shoot the s.o.b.  That way, no imminence ain't goin' to be taking place any time soon - you can take that to the bank.

    Gotta get me some skeet.

    Pathetically (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 02:01:20 PM EST
    Barack Obama is a terrorist who should be in prison enjoying fairer and more humane treatment than he doles out to his targets in the fake WOT and to his prisoners like Bradley Manning.

    Anyone supporting Barack Obama is a terrorist sympathizer and supporter...

    Is this performance art? (none / 0) (#107)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:09:43 PM EST
    Or are you serious?  I am no fan of Obama but you may make me defend him if you keep this up. I used to hate that phrase "the hate America first crowd"  but I am starting to understand it.

    As for Bradley Manning, he knew what he was doing would have consequences no matter how unfair.  If he thought he was doing the right thing then he should be bearing his burden with courage and pride and everyone should stop whining on his behalf. There is nothing worse than cry baby radicals.

    Parent

    Sure there is (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by sj on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:46:31 PM EST
    There is nothing worse than cry baby radicals.
    There are patronizing, passive-aggressive, dismissive scolds who make judgements based on personal prejudices while wagging a finger at others who are doing the same thing.

    Way worse.

    Parent

    I'd give you a 5 to the 10th power (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 08:35:10 PM EST
    if that were possible.

    Parent
    Is the jurisdiction limited to foreign soil (none / 0) (#39)
    by leftwig on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 02:31:29 PM EST
    or do they contend drone strikes on US soil are legal as well?  I didn't see a distinction drawn, but admittedly I just skimmed an article.

    Reason Magazine hits it on the head (none / 0) (#47)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 05:06:48 PM EST
    Obama is just a liar when it comes to certain things.

    REASON

    The DOJ Lawyers are Guilty of Conspiracy to Murder (none / 0) (#57)
    by DoctorD on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 02:55:27 AM EST
    The DOJ memo does more than claim to justify murder. It explicitly contemplates that the procedures described are being carried out. This is the exact equivalent of a Mob Lawyer advising his client how to commit murder and avoid being prosecuted for it. All of the DOJ lawyers who participated in the creation of this memo became guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Murder in the First Degree the moment any agent of the United States committed the first overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Since President Obama and others have publicly admitted to killings that qualify as "overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy", all of the DOJ lawyers are already guilty.

    1. The Geneva conventions define the Law of War to only apply on the actual Field of Battle. Every where else the ordinary civilian laws and police powers apply.

    2. The AUMF authorized the use of force only against the Taliban and the original Al-Qa'ida.

    3. The Field of Battle was defined in the AUMF as only extending to Afghanistan and other places where the Taliban and the original Al-Qa'ida are located.

    4. The Taliban and Al-Qa'ida only are to be found in Afghanistan and the mountains on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    5. In order to qualify under the laws of war as a "co-belligerent" a group would have to have signed a treaty with the Taliban or the original Al-Qa'ida or to have made public statements joining or giving allegiance to the Taliban or the original Al-Qa'ida. The only group that did so was Al-Qa'ida in Iraq and even they only did so several years after the war in Iraq started.

    6. All other Islamic armed groups in any other nation are not included. They may be terrorists and they may hate the US, but they are not co-belligerents with the Taliban or the original Al-Qa'ida.

    7. Anyone who is not a co-belligerent and is not actually attacking the US is not [Legally] part of the state of war authorized by the AUMF. Any use of force against such person is subject to normal civilian law and not the Law of War.

    8. The use of "Imminent Threat" in the DOJ memo is contrary to how "Imminent Threat" is defined in both US Law and the Geneva Conventions. For someone to be an Imminent Threat to the US there must be close proximity in both time and location between the threatening person, an act of violence expected to be committed by that person and the US or US forces [who must also have a right to be where they are].

    9. The US only gains any rights to use force against a person claimed to be an Imminent Threat when the person is "Within Reach" of US forces. Nobody in Somalia, Yemen, or in some village in western Pakistan is "Within Reach" of US forces, so they cannot be an Imminent Threat. Also, a person can never be an Imminent Threat to a Predator Drone.

    10. Speech can never be an Imminent Threat, only acts of violence count as an Imminent Threat.

    11. The Geneva Conventions only allow a "kill without any attempt to capture" mission on an actual battle field, everywhere else such a mission is illegal. Civilian Law forbids such missions entirely.

    12. As a consequence, all of the Drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia and western Pakistan are subject to civilian law and under civilian law they are acts of Murder in the First Degree. Everyone who participates in, plans, orders or writes legal memos justifying such acts are guilty of Murder, Conspiracy to Commit Murder or Accessory to Murder.