If you say so. I will waste no energy hoping to extend Constitutional safety to those that had it and rejected it.
Again, in principle, it's not a good thing in any way but this isn't the guy to illicit any sympathy.
Government Kill Lists
- Thread starter SPECTRE1
- Start date
If you say so. I will waste no energy hoping to extend Constitutional safety to those that had it and rejected it.
Again, in principle, it's not a good thing in any way but this isn't the guy to illicit any sympathy.
I don't think they even charged him. All he got was a bunch of statements from the executive branch talking about all he's done.
Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?
Luckily the NYT didn't publish this before the election. Wouldn't want to risk someone giving a shit.
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?
By VICKI DIVOLL
Published: January 16, 2013
PRESIDENT OBAMA has refused to tell Congress or the American people why he believes the Constitution gives, or fails to deny, him the authority to secretly target and kill American citizens who he suspects are involved in terrorist activities overseas. So far he has killed three that we know of.
Presidents had never before, to our knowledge, targeted specific Americans for military strikes. There are no court decisions that tell us if he is acting lawfully. Mr. Obama tells us not to worry, though, because his lawyers say it is fine, because experts guide the decisions and because his advisers have set up a careful process to help him decide whom he should kill.
He must think we should be relieved.
The three Americans known to have been killed, in two drone strikes in Yemen in the fall of 2011, are Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was born in New Mexico; Samir Khan, a naturalized American citizen who had lived in New York and North Carolina, and was killed alongside Mr. Awlaki; and, in a strike two weeks later, Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Colorado.
Most of us think these people were probably terrorists anyway. So the president’s reassurances have been enough to keep criticism at an acceptable level for the White House. Democrats in Congress and in the press have only gingerly questioned the claims by a Democratic president that he is right about the law and careful when he orders drone attacks on our citizens. And Republicans, who favor aggressive national security powers for the executive branch, look forward to the day when one of their own can wield them again.
But a few of our representatives have spoken up — sort of. Several months ago, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, began limply requesting the Department of Justice memorandums that justify the targeted killing program. At a committee hearing, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., reminded of the request, demurred and shared a rueful chuckle with the senator. Mr. Leahy did not want to be rude, it seems — though some of us remember him being harder on former President George W. Bush’s attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, in 2005.
So, even though Congress has the absolute power under the Constitution to receive these documents, the Democratic-controlled Senate has not fought this president to get them. If the senators did, and the president held fast to his refusal, they could go to court and demand them, and I believe they would win. Perhaps even better, they could skip getting the legal memos and go right to the meat of the matter — using oversight and perhaps legislating to control the president’s killing powers. That isn’t happening either.
Thank goodness we have another branch of government to step into the fray. It is the job of the federal courts to interpret the Constitution and laws, and thus to define the boundaries of the powers of the branches of government, including their own.
In reining in the branches, the courts have been toughest on themselves, however. A long line of Supreme Court cases require that judges wait for cases to come to them. They can take cases only from plaintiffs who have a personal stake in the outcome; they cannot decide political questions; they cannot rule on an issue not squarely before them.
Because of these and other limitations, no case has made it far enough in federal court for a judge to rule on the merits of the basic constitutional questions at stake here. A pending case filed in July by the families of the three dead Americans does raise Fourth and Fifth Amendment challenges to the president’s killings of their relatives. We will see if the judge agrees to consider the constitutional questions or dismisses the case, citing limitations on his own power.
In another case, decided two weeks ago, a federal judge in Manhattan, Colleen McMahon, ruled, grudgingly, that the American Civil Liberties Union and two New York Times reporters could not get access, under the Freedom of Information Act, to classified legal memorandums that were relied on to justify the targeted killing program. In her opinion, she expressed serious reservations about the president’s interpretation of the constitutional questions. But the merits of the program were not before her, just access to the Justice Department memos, so her opinion was, in effect, nothing but an interesting read.
So at the moment, the legislature and the courts are flummoxed by, or don’t care about, how or whether to take on this aggressive program. But Mr. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, should know, of all people, what needs to be done. He was highly critical when Mr. Bush applied new constitutional theories to justify warrantless wiretapping and “enhanced interrogation.” In his 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama demanded transparency, and after taking office, he released legal memos that the Bush administration had kept secret. Once the self-serving constitutional analysis that the Bush team had used was revealed, legal scholars from across the spectrum studied and denounced it.
While Mr. Obama has criticized his predecessor, he has also worried about his successors. Last fall, when the election’s outcome was still in doubt, Mr. Obama talked about drone strikes in general and said Congress and the courts should in some manner “rein in” presidents by putting a “legal architecture in place.” His comments seemed to reflect concern that future presidents should perhaps not wield alone such awesome and unchecked power over life and death — of anyone, not just Americans. Oddly, under current law, Congress and the courts are involved when presidents eavesdrop on Americans, detain them or harshly interrogate them — but not when they kill them.
It is not just the most recent president, this one and the next whom we need to worry about when it comes to improper exercise of power. It is every president. Mr. Obama should declassify and release, to Congress, the press and the public, documents that set forth the detailed constitutional and statutory analysis he relies on for targeting and killing American citizens.
Perhaps Mr. Obama still believes that, in a democracy, the people have a right to know the legal theories upon which the president executes his great powers. Certainly, we can hope so. After all, his interpretation might be wrong.
Vicki Divoll is a former general counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and former deputy legal adviser to the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/o...ricans-mr-president.html?_r=1&&pagewanted=all
Luckily the NYT didn't publish this before the election. Wouldn't want to risk someone giving a shit.
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?
By VICKI DIVOLL
Published: January 16, 2013
PRESIDENT OBAMA has refused to tell Congress or the American people why he believes the Constitution gives, or fails to deny, him the authority to secretly target and kill American citizens who he suspects are involved in terrorist activities overseas. So far he has killed three that we know of.
Presidents had never before, to our knowledge, targeted specific Americans for military strikes. There are no court decisions that tell us if he is acting lawfully. Mr. Obama tells us not to worry, though, because his lawyers say it is fine, because experts guide the decisions and because his advisers have set up a careful process to help him decide whom he should kill.
He must think we should be relieved.
The three Americans known to have been killed, in two drone strikes in Yemen in the fall of 2011, are Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was born in New Mexico; Samir Khan, a naturalized American citizen who had lived in New York and North Carolina, and was killed alongside Mr. Awlaki; and, in a strike two weeks later, Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Colorado.
Most of us think these people were probably terrorists anyway. So the president’s reassurances have been enough to keep criticism at an acceptable level for the White House. Democrats in Congress and in the press have only gingerly questioned the claims by a Democratic president that he is right about the law and careful when he orders drone attacks on our citizens. And Republicans, who favor aggressive national security powers for the executive branch, look forward to the day when one of their own can wield them again.
But a few of our representatives have spoken up — sort of. Several months ago, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, began limply requesting the Department of Justice memorandums that justify the targeted killing program. At a committee hearing, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., reminded of the request, demurred and shared a rueful chuckle with the senator. Mr. Leahy did not want to be rude, it seems — though some of us remember him being harder on former President George W. Bush’s attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, in 2005.
So, even though Congress has the absolute power under the Constitution to receive these documents, the Democratic-controlled Senate has not fought this president to get them. If the senators did, and the president held fast to his refusal, they could go to court and demand them, and I believe they would win. Perhaps even better, they could skip getting the legal memos and go right to the meat of the matter — using oversight and perhaps legislating to control the president’s killing powers. That isn’t happening either.
Thank goodness we have another branch of government to step into the fray. It is the job of the federal courts to interpret the Constitution and laws, and thus to define the boundaries of the powers of the branches of government, including their own.
In reining in the branches, the courts have been toughest on themselves, however. A long line of Supreme Court cases require that judges wait for cases to come to them. They can take cases only from plaintiffs who have a personal stake in the outcome; they cannot decide political questions; they cannot rule on an issue not squarely before them.
Because of these and other limitations, no case has made it far enough in federal court for a judge to rule on the merits of the basic constitutional questions at stake here. A pending case filed in July by the families of the three dead Americans does raise Fourth and Fifth Amendment challenges to the president’s killings of their relatives. We will see if the judge agrees to consider the constitutional questions or dismisses the case, citing limitations on his own power.
In another case, decided two weeks ago, a federal judge in Manhattan, Colleen McMahon, ruled, grudgingly, that the American Civil Liberties Union and two New York Times reporters could not get access, under the Freedom of Information Act, to classified legal memorandums that were relied on to justify the targeted killing program. In her opinion, she expressed serious reservations about the president’s interpretation of the constitutional questions. But the merits of the program were not before her, just access to the Justice Department memos, so her opinion was, in effect, nothing but an interesting read.
So at the moment, the legislature and the courts are flummoxed by, or don’t care about, how or whether to take on this aggressive program. But Mr. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, should know, of all people, what needs to be done. He was highly critical when Mr. Bush applied new constitutional theories to justify warrantless wiretapping and “enhanced interrogation.” In his 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama demanded transparency, and after taking office, he released legal memos that the Bush administration had kept secret. Once the self-serving constitutional analysis that the Bush team had used was revealed, legal scholars from across the spectrum studied and denounced it.
While Mr. Obama has criticized his predecessor, he has also worried about his successors. Last fall, when the election’s outcome was still in doubt, Mr. Obama talked about drone strikes in general and said Congress and the courts should in some manner “rein in” presidents by putting a “legal architecture in place.” His comments seemed to reflect concern that future presidents should perhaps not wield alone such awesome and unchecked power over life and death — of anyone, not just Americans. Oddly, under current law, Congress and the courts are involved when presidents eavesdrop on Americans, detain them or harshly interrogate them — but not when they kill them.
It is not just the most recent president, this one and the next whom we need to worry about when it comes to improper exercise of power. It is every president. Mr. Obama should declassify and release, to Congress, the press and the public, documents that set forth the detailed constitutional and statutory analysis he relies on for targeting and killing American citizens.
Perhaps Mr. Obama still believes that, in a democracy, the people have a right to know the legal theories upon which the president executes his great powers. Certainly, we can hope so. After all, his interpretation might be wrong.
Vicki Divoll is a former general counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and former deputy legal adviser to the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/o...ricans-mr-president.html?_r=1&&pagewanted=all
Keep reachin' Greed!
What if they published Romney's taxes?
Get over it, Obama 4 more years!
Nice to see the troll is still strong in you.
Tell me more about whether Obama should have legal authority to kill an American with nothing more than an executive decree.
Then you can go to the thread about Obama's belief that due process-less indefinite detentions for Americans should be legal and drop your serious knowledge there.
Then you can go to your Hitler is relevant to the gun control debate thread and promote more serious discussions by questioning the education of someone who asked you a question.
Thanks in advance.
Like you really care about Americans getting killed by drones. You don't care about Americans getting killed by guns.
thoughtone, if it means anything to you, I think you are the most perfect American I could ever imagine.
You're a great example why this country looks the way it does.
White House defends drone-war killing of Americans
White House defends drone-war killing of Americans
The Ticket - 5 hrs ago
The White House on Tuesday defended targeted assassinations of Americans thought to consort overseas with terrorists as “necessary,” “ethical” and “wise,” as the Obama administration faced fresh questions about its sharply expanded drone war.
"We conduct those strikes because they are necessary to mitigate ongoing actual threats—to stop plots, prevent future attacks and, again, save American lives,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters. “These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise."
Carney’s comments came after NBC News published a Justice Department memo that lays out a broad rationale for targeting individual Americans anywhere outside the U.S. for assassination—without oversight from Congress or the courts, and even if the U.S. citizen in question is not actively plotting a specific terrorist attack.
The 16-page document, obtained by NBC News, emerged days before John Brennan, Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser and the foremost architect of America’s hugely controversial unmanned aerial vehicle war, goes before the Senate Intelligence Committee in a Thursday hearing on his confirmation as CIA director.
Obama campaigned in 2008 as a fierce critic of George W. Bush’s national security policies, notably interrogation practices widely seen as torture. He also left little doubt that he would order unilateral strikes inside another country if he deemed them necessary. In office, he has apparently learned to stop worrying and love executive power—the literal power of life and death over fellow U.S. citizens overseas when he suspects they are consorting with extremists groups that may be targeting America. So, under what circumstances does he have the right to act?
The memo says “an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government” must decide that the target is a "senior operational leader" of al-Qaida or "associated forces"; “poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States”; and that an attempt to capture that individual is “infeasible.”
“Targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States is not unlawful. It is a lawful act of self-defense,” the document asserts.
"Imminent threat"? That seems reasonable and is a traditional standard for military action. Except, as NBC investigative reporter Michael Isikoff notes, the memo adds that “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.”
Instead, that previously mentioned "high-level official" can determine that the potential target was “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of an attack and that “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.”
Isikoff notes the memo does not define "activities" or "recently," leaving that up to the administration to determine on a case-by-case basis.
A reporter asked Carney about the case of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the teenage son of Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida supporter killed by a U.S. drone in Yemen. The boy, 16, was killed in another drone strike about two weeks after his father. Was the son a “senior operational leader” of a terrorist group, a reporter asked. That seemed to stump Carney. “I’m not going to talk about individual operations that may or may not have occurred.”
But Obama wages this 21st-century war in a manner “consistent with the Constitution and our laws,” while aides review the difficult legal and ethical questions “with great care and deliberation,” Carney said.
The memo notes that the president can order a strike against al-Qaida far beyond the battlefield of Afghanistan, and it makes clear that he will not be constrained by national sovereignty. Either a country will give the green light to drone strikes on its territory, or America will strike if that country is "unable or willing" to do so.
This is no surprise. Obama famously said in the 2008 campaign that he would order an attack inside Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden, whether or not Islamabad signed off. He made made good on that promise, ordering the raid on bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, on May 1, 2011, which killed the terrorist leader.
The memo is sure to trigger another round of questions from Congress about the drone war, which has been shrouded in secrecy. And it comes at a time when that campaign is powerfully unpopular overseas, according to a June 2012 Pew Research poll. While 62 percent of Americans approve of the approach, 44 percent of respondents in staunch ally Britain do. And the numbers plummet in countries with large Muslim populations: 6 percent in Egypt, for instance, and 9 percent in NATO ally Turkey.
That's in part the reflection of anger over civilian casualties from such attacks. Obama has grappled with that problem ever since the very first drone strike on his watch, a Jan. 23, 2009, attack that reportedly claimed the life of "an innocent tribal elder" in Pakistan. A May 2012 New York Times report said the administration minimizes civilian casualties by counting "all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants."
The memo drew a withering response from the American Civil Liberties Union.
“This is a profoundly disturbing document, and it’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority—the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement before or after the fact.”
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ar-killing-americans-164123578--politics.html
White House defends drone-war killing of Americans
The Ticket - 5 hrs ago
The White House on Tuesday defended targeted assassinations of Americans thought to consort overseas with terrorists as “necessary,” “ethical” and “wise,” as the Obama administration faced fresh questions about its sharply expanded drone war.
"We conduct those strikes because they are necessary to mitigate ongoing actual threats—to stop plots, prevent future attacks and, again, save American lives,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters. “These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise."
Carney’s comments came after NBC News published a Justice Department memo that lays out a broad rationale for targeting individual Americans anywhere outside the U.S. for assassination—without oversight from Congress or the courts, and even if the U.S. citizen in question is not actively plotting a specific terrorist attack.
The 16-page document, obtained by NBC News, emerged days before John Brennan, Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser and the foremost architect of America’s hugely controversial unmanned aerial vehicle war, goes before the Senate Intelligence Committee in a Thursday hearing on his confirmation as CIA director.
Obama campaigned in 2008 as a fierce critic of George W. Bush’s national security policies, notably interrogation practices widely seen as torture. He also left little doubt that he would order unilateral strikes inside another country if he deemed them necessary. In office, he has apparently learned to stop worrying and love executive power—the literal power of life and death over fellow U.S. citizens overseas when he suspects they are consorting with extremists groups that may be targeting America. So, under what circumstances does he have the right to act?
The memo says “an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government” must decide that the target is a "senior operational leader" of al-Qaida or "associated forces"; “poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States”; and that an attempt to capture that individual is “infeasible.”
“Targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States is not unlawful. It is a lawful act of self-defense,” the document asserts.
"Imminent threat"? That seems reasonable and is a traditional standard for military action. Except, as NBC investigative reporter Michael Isikoff notes, the memo adds that “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.”
Instead, that previously mentioned "high-level official" can determine that the potential target was “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of an attack and that “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.”
Isikoff notes the memo does not define "activities" or "recently," leaving that up to the administration to determine on a case-by-case basis.
A reporter asked Carney about the case of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the teenage son of Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida supporter killed by a U.S. drone in Yemen. The boy, 16, was killed in another drone strike about two weeks after his father. Was the son a “senior operational leader” of a terrorist group, a reporter asked. That seemed to stump Carney. “I’m not going to talk about individual operations that may or may not have occurred.”
But Obama wages this 21st-century war in a manner “consistent with the Constitution and our laws,” while aides review the difficult legal and ethical questions “with great care and deliberation,” Carney said.
The memo notes that the president can order a strike against al-Qaida far beyond the battlefield of Afghanistan, and it makes clear that he will not be constrained by national sovereignty. Either a country will give the green light to drone strikes on its territory, or America will strike if that country is "unable or willing" to do so.
This is no surprise. Obama famously said in the 2008 campaign that he would order an attack inside Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden, whether or not Islamabad signed off. He made made good on that promise, ordering the raid on bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, on May 1, 2011, which killed the terrorist leader.
The memo is sure to trigger another round of questions from Congress about the drone war, which has been shrouded in secrecy. And it comes at a time when that campaign is powerfully unpopular overseas, according to a June 2012 Pew Research poll. While 62 percent of Americans approve of the approach, 44 percent of respondents in staunch ally Britain do. And the numbers plummet in countries with large Muslim populations: 6 percent in Egypt, for instance, and 9 percent in NATO ally Turkey.
That's in part the reflection of anger over civilian casualties from such attacks. Obama has grappled with that problem ever since the very first drone strike on his watch, a Jan. 23, 2009, attack that reportedly claimed the life of "an innocent tribal elder" in Pakistan. A May 2012 New York Times report said the administration minimizes civilian casualties by counting "all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants."
The memo drew a withering response from the American Civil Liberties Union.
“This is a profoundly disturbing document, and it’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority—the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement before or after the fact.”
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ar-killing-americans-164123578--politics.html
Greed, I'm looking back over this board, pre 2009 and I don't see any of your posts about this. Is there a reason why you are so concerned now?
Was this an issue before 2009?
If Bush killed Americans through Executive decree with no official judicial sanction, then he got away with as far as I know.
Is that what this thread is about, or is it about the process an American president uses to determine another American's death?
True, there is no evidence GW killed any Americans, I'll grant you that. However, the use of drones to kill anyone indiscriminately has not been at the top of your bitch list then either.
Yes, this is reprehensible. The slippery slope has begun. President Obama has set a dangerous precedent.
Will the GOP question this during the upcoming Senate confirmation of President Obama's CIA nominee John Brennan, the architect of the drone policy. I think not since this is there policy too.
I see most of the displeasure of this from the so called liberal wing of the democratic party and libertarians.
President Obama's next press conference should be interesting.
Has it been indiscriminate? If you want to provide evidence of that, then I would be receptive, but I'm definitely not against the use of drones in general.
This is the slope? If this isn't the government's endgame, then what do you perceive is at the bottom of the slope? Drinking stem cells straight from a fresh fetus as part of the Affordable Care Act?
I agree, this is what politics is all about. Waiting for your turn to get the bat to bash someone in the head. Neither Republicans or Democrats act on principles of right or wrong. Nothing is more important than doing what they can get away with. An implicit agreement to allow each other to kill Americans is both parties ideologies taken to their logical conclusions.
Any Republican that brings this up in the hearings and ignored it when it hit the news two years ago is a hypocrite. But then again, what politician faces any consequences for looking like a hypocrite?
Who are lacking in influence, just like their concern that bankers are immune to justice.
Who cares? Definitely not anyone with power.
Doubt it. Pretty sure he'll get a pass since the killing happened openly two years ago. It didn't even come up during any of the debates or the election in general.
Can you say new norm.
Brennan nomination exposes criticism on targeted killings and secret Saudi base
By Greg Miller and Karen DeYoung, *Published: FEBRUARY 05, 7:56 PM ET
President Obama’s plan to install his counterterrorism adviser as director of the CIA has opened the administration to new scrutiny over the targeted-killing policies it has fought to keep hidden from the public, as well as the existence of a previously secret drone base in Saudi Arabia.
The administration’s refusal to provide details about one of the most controversial aspects of its drone campaign — strikes on U.S. citizens abroad — has emerged as a potential source of opposition to CIA nominee John O. Brennan, who faces a Senate confirmation hearing scheduled for Thursday.
The secrecy surrounding that policy was punctured Monday with the disclosure of a Justice Department “white paper” that spells out the administration’s case for killing Americans accused of being al-Qaeda operatives.
The timing of the leak appeared aimed at intensifying pressure on the White House to disclose more-detailed legal memos that the paper summarizes — and at putting Brennan, Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, on the defensive for his appearance on Capitol Hill.
Administration officials on Tuesday sought to play down the significance of the disclosure, saying that they have already described the principles outlined in the document in a series of speeches.
“One of the things I want to make sure that everybody understands is that our primary concern is to keep the American people safe, but to do so in a way that’s consistent with our laws and consistent with our values,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in response to questions about the document.
Nevertheless, the leak and signals from senior lawmakers that they may seek to delay, if not derail, Brennan’s confirmation made it clear that Obama’s decision to nominate him has drawn the White House into a fight it had sought to avoid.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the intelligence committee, said Brennan’s level of influence and the timing of his nomination have given lawmakers leverage that they lacked in previous efforts to seek details from the White House.
Brennan “is the architect of [the administration’s] counterterrorism policy,” Wyden said. “If the Congress doesn’t get answers to these questions now, it’s going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get them in the future.”
The Obama administration’s targeted-killing program has relied on a growing constellation of drone bases operated by the CIA and the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command. The only strike intentionally targeting a U.S. citizen, a 2011 attack that killed al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki, was carried out in part by CIA drones flown from a secret base in Saudi Arabia.
The base was established two years ago to intensify the hunt against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as the affiliate in Yemen is known. Brennan, who previously served as the CIA’s station chief in Saudi Arabia, played a key role in negotiations with Riyadh over locating an agency drone base inside the kingdom.
The Washington Post had refrained from disclosing the location at the request of the administration, which cited concern that exposing the facility would undermine operations against an al-Qaeda affiliate regarded as the network’s most potent threat to the United States, as well as potentially damage counterterrorism collaboration with Saudi Arabia.
The Post learned Tuesday night that another news organization was planning to reveal the location of the base, effectively ending an informal arrangement among several news organizations that had been aware of the location for more than a year.
The white paper, which was first reported by NBC News, concludes that the United States can lawfully kill one of its own citizens overseas if it determines that the person is a “senior, operational leader” of al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates and poses an imminent threat.
But the 16-page document allows for an elastic interpretation of those concepts and does not require that the target be involved in a specific plot, because al-Qaeda is “continually involved in planning terrorist attacks against the United States.”
The paper does not spell out who might qualify as an “informed, high-level official” able to determine whether an American overseas is a legitimate target. It avoids specifics on a range of issues, including the level of evidence required for an American to be considered a “senior, operational” figure in al-Qaeda.
The document’s emphasis on those two words, which appear together 16 times, helps to explain the careful phrasing the administration employed in the single case in which it intentionally killed an American citizen in a counterterrorism strike.
Within hours after Awlaki’s death in September 2011, White House officials described the U.S.-born cleric as “chief of external operations” for al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, a designation they had not used publicly before the strike.
Officials said that Awlaki, previously portrayed mainly as a propagandist, was directly involved in a series of plots, including the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day in 2009.
The white paper, which was distributed confidentially to certain lawmakers last summer, does not indicate when the underlying Justice Department memos on targeted killings of Americans were completed.
As a result, it is unclear whether the memos were in place before the first apparent attempt to kill Awlaki, a joint U.S.-Yemeni strike shortly before the foiled Detroit plot in 2009.
Three other Americans have been killed in U.S. airstrikes in Yemen since 2002, including Awlaki’s 16-year-old son. U.S. officials have said those Americans were casualties of attacks aimed at senior al-Qaeda operatives.
Civil liberties groups described the white paper as an example of the kind of unchecked executive power Obama campaigned against during his first presidential run.
“The parallels to the Bush administration torture memos are chilling,” said Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Warren accused Obama of hypocrisy for ordering George W. Bush administration memos to be released publicly while maintaining secrecy around his own. To deliver on his promises of transparency, Warren said, Obama “must release his own legal memos and not just a Cliffs Notes version.”
White House press secretary Jay Carney emphasized that the white paper is unclassified and indicated that the administration does not intend to release the classified legal memo on which it is based. Asked whether Obama would respond to demands from lawmakers that he release the original document, Carney said, “I just have nothing for you on alleged memos regarding potentially classified matters.”
The number of attacks on Americans is minuscule compared with the broader toll of the drone campaign, which has killed more than 3,000 militants and civilians in hundreds of strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
The administration has frequently described its domestic and international legal rationales for drone strikes in general terms. The white paper expands those justifications with specific determinations to be made in the case of U.S. citizens.
The struggle between the administration and Congress is relatively narrow, limited mainly to the White House’s refusal to turn over a collection of classified memos rather than any broad-scale opposition to the use of drone strikes or even the killing of Americans.
Most members of Congress agree with administration assertions that the drone campaign has been essential to crippling al-Qaeda and its ability to mount large-scale attacks against the United States.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairman of the intelligence committee that will consider Brennan’s nomination, released a statement Tuesday indicating that she believes the release of the white paper — which was apparently done without the consent of the administration — should quell calls for more transparency.
The administration’s legal position “is now public and the American people can review and judge the legality of these operations,” Feinstein said. She has indicated she will support Brennan’s nomination.
Brennan, 57, has presided over a major expansion of the drone campaign, although he is also credited with imposing more rigorous internal reviews on the selection of targets. He spent 25 years at the CIA and was considered a likely candidate for the top job in Obama’s first term. He withdrew amid mounting opposition from civil liberties groups that called attention to his role as a senior CIA executive when the agency began using interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, that were subsequently denounced as akin to torture.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...3c94f0-6fb0-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html
I said in this or another thread on the same topic, I don't have much of a problem attacking whomever that finds him/her self on the side of those with whom we are at war; and whomever it is, if he/she stands in the shoes of combatant, then he/she stands to "get it" in the manner and under the same circumstances and conditions that any other combatant would get it.
Of course, I realize that as technology evolves so must our policies. I think its becomming quite apparent that we really need to examine our policy in the most "apolitical environment" possible to consider and formulate policy in the face of the ethical and constitutional questions posed by the use of changing technology including, but not limited to, drones.
,
Of course, I realize that as technology evolves so must our policies. I think its becomming quite apparent that we really need to examine our policy in the most "apolitical environment" possible to consider and formulate policy in the face of the ethical and constitutional questions posed by the use of changing technology including, but not limited to, drones.
,
Lindsey "Grahamnesty" to Offer Resolution Praising Obama For Killing Americans
It should be obvious the Neocons & the Dem leadership are on the same path. I'm starting to want my country back
No Drone Zone
City in Virginia Becomes First to Pass Anti-Drone Legislation
Resolution bans all municipal agencies from buying or leasing drones
A statue of Thomas Jefferson overlooks the Charlottesville, Va.,
campus of the University of Virginia.
Charlottesville, Va., has become the first city in the United States to formally pass an anti-drone resolution.
The resolution, passed Monday, "calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt legislation prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court," and "pledges to abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones."
The resolution passed by a 3-2 vote and was brought to the city council by activist David Swanson and the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group based in the city. The measure also endorses a proposed two-year moratorium on drones in Virginia.
Councilmember Dede Smith, who voted in favor of the bill, says that drones are "pretty clearly a threat to our constitutional right to privacy."
"If we don't get out ahead of it to establish some guidelines for how drones are used, they will be used in a very invasive way and we'll be left to try and pick up the pieces," she says.
The passed resolution is much less restrictive than the draft Swanson originally introduced, which would have sought to declare the city a "No Drone Zone" and would have tried to banned all drones over Charlottesville airspace "to the extent compatible with federal law." The draft would have also banned all Charlottesville municipal agencies from buying, leasing, borrowing, or testing any drones.
Councilmember Dave Norris says the city has a "long tradition of promoting civil liberties."
"It's just part of our culture here," he says.
Charlottesville is located 120 miles southwest of Washington, D.C., and has a population of about 43,000. The city is home to the University of Virginia, which has not tried to obtain a waiver to test drones from the Federal Aviation Administration.
The move earned praise from the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Amie Stepanovich, a lawyer with the group, says that the "Charlottesville resolution demonstrates that people care about protecting their civil liberties and Fourth Amendment rights and are willing to devote the time necessary to closely examine this issue."
"Lawmakers should be looking at [drone privacy] issues now in order to ensure that there are safeguards in place to protect individual privacy from these invasive technologies," she says.
Smith admits that the final legislation won't do anything to prevent federal- or state-operated drones from operating over Charlottesville's skies, but that the symbolic move could push other cities to follow suit.
"With a lot of these resolutions, although they don't have a lot of teeth to them, they can inspire other governments to pass similar measures," she says. "You can get a critical mass and then it does have influence. One doesn't do much, but a thousand of them might. We want this on [federal and state lawmakers'] radars."
Vice Mayor Kristin Szakos, who voted against the resolution, says she "can imagine ways in which drones might be used for positive things" and that the move was premature.
"I think drones have been used for bad things, but it's like banning airplanes because they can drop bombs," she says. "At this point, the city isn't even talking about using drones. It seems premature to me to ban them altogether."
The resolution, passed Monday, "calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt legislation prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court," and "pledges to abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones."
The resolution passed by a 3-2 vote and was brought to the city council by activist David Swanson and the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group based in the city. The measure also endorses a proposed two-year moratorium on drones in Virginia.
Councilmember Dede Smith, who voted in favor of the bill, says that drones are "pretty clearly a threat to our constitutional right to privacy."
"If we don't get out ahead of it to establish some guidelines for how drones are used, they will be used in a very invasive way and we'll be left to try and pick up the pieces," she says.
The passed resolution is much less restrictive than the draft Swanson originally introduced, which would have sought to declare the city a "No Drone Zone" and would have tried to banned all drones over Charlottesville airspace "to the extent compatible with federal law." The draft would have also banned all Charlottesville municipal agencies from buying, leasing, borrowing, or testing any drones.
Councilmember Dave Norris says the city has a "long tradition of promoting civil liberties."
"It's just part of our culture here," he says.
Charlottesville is located 120 miles southwest of Washington, D.C., and has a population of about 43,000. The city is home to the University of Virginia, which has not tried to obtain a waiver to test drones from the Federal Aviation Administration.
The move earned praise from the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Amie Stepanovich, a lawyer with the group, says that the "Charlottesville resolution demonstrates that people care about protecting their civil liberties and Fourth Amendment rights and are willing to devote the time necessary to closely examine this issue."
"Lawmakers should be looking at [drone privacy] issues now in order to ensure that there are safeguards in place to protect individual privacy from these invasive technologies," she says.
Smith admits that the final legislation won't do anything to prevent federal- or state-operated drones from operating over Charlottesville's skies, but that the symbolic move could push other cities to follow suit.
"With a lot of these resolutions, although they don't have a lot of teeth to them, they can inspire other governments to pass similar measures," she says. "You can get a critical mass and then it does have influence. One doesn't do much, but a thousand of them might. We want this on [federal and state lawmakers'] radars."
Vice Mayor Kristin Szakos, who voted against the resolution, says she "can imagine ways in which drones might be used for positive things" and that the move was premature.
"I think drones have been used for bad things, but it's like banning airplanes because they can drop bombs," she says. "At this point, the city isn't even talking about using drones. It seems premature to me to ban them altogether."
U.S. News & World Report
Lindsey "Grahamnesty" to Offer Resolution Praising Obama For Killing Americans
It should be obvious the Neocons & the Dem leadership are on the same path. I'm starting to want my country back
You didn't want it back in 1983 when Reagan invaded Grenada?
Actually then end game would be conservatives and libertarians allowing absolutely no limits on any kind of gun leading to any young "Black" male getting gunned down under the guise that they just looked like a threat.
Damn troll, I was barely born
show me an instance where I've supported a War of aggression & you might have a point.
This is an amazing ivy league-level political case study. The apparently successful shaping of this issue away from defining executive authority to drone usage is masterful.
This is why politics is without substance.
Both Republicans and Democrats are planning on turning the Brennan confirmation hearing into a referendum on the righteousness of the drone program as if that answers the justness of this latest expansion of executive powers.
The questions that are valid are:
Does an American's rights, which are supposed to be inviolate and can be invoked by the individual, limit the American government's actions against him outside of American territories?
Is it logical that if an American citizen is a part of a recognized terrorist organization, then he is a perpetual imminent threat to the point where it is justified to kill him when he is driving on a barren road in Yemen while not giving active material support to an attack?
Can the President decide the appropriate due process regarding your rights outside of US jurisdiction without the other branches?
Can Congress pass a law limiting your rights to the border?
Can the judiciary be excluded at all?
I want the public to have this debate.
How does reaffirming the rightfulness of the drone program address the rights of Americans in conflict with America.
This is why politics is without substance.
Both Republicans and Democrats are planning on turning the Brennan confirmation hearing into a referendum on the righteousness of the drone program as if that answers the justness of this latest expansion of executive powers.
The questions that are valid are:
Does an American's rights, which are supposed to be inviolate and can be invoked by the individual, limit the American government's actions against him outside of American territories?
Is it logical that if an American citizen is a part of a recognized terrorist organization, then he is a perpetual imminent threat to the point where it is justified to kill him when he is driving on a barren road in Yemen while not giving active material support to an attack?
Can the President decide the appropriate due process regarding your rights outside of US jurisdiction without the other branches?
Can Congress pass a law limiting your rights to the border?
Can the judiciary be excluded at all?
I want the public to have this debate.
How does reaffirming the rightfulness of the drone program address the rights of Americans in conflict with America.
Interesting questions, indeed. And, as you allude to, I think we're largely talking about Due Process.
I understand what it means and how it comes into play when, in this country or upon some ground upon which the U.S. is exercising jurisdiction, we're talking the deprivation of a liberty or recognized property interest.
But, what is Due Process on the Battlefield ???
- In situations where it is deemed perfectly okay to kill the non-American enemy on the battlefield; is it wrong, illegal, etc., to kill an American on the battlefield who is doing the very same things that the non-American combatant is doing ???
- In other words, does the mere label "American" attributed to a person who is otherwise and in every respect an enemy combatant -- entitle that person to something different -- merely because he/she is American ???
- If so, what ???
Can we discuss/debate the questions above -- before we introduce facts in the gray areas ???
`
The government (local and federal) have culture of secrecy and coverup based on how whistleblowers are attacked and fired. This is similar to Mexican drug cartels or the Mafia which go after members that testify or speak out about crimes that were committed. I have personally witnessed the government hide information from the American people and engage in cover up activities.
Whenever you see this type activity, it is a strong indicator of criminal activity and corruption within these organizations. Therefore, I don't want to entrust any government organization with this authority without due process/trial by absentia.
There are some circumstances whereby the government can condemn you to death during a hostage situation. This is clearly not the case. Additionally, they also targeted his children and condemned them to death, a person that was born in Colorado. This is a hit job conducted by the U.S. military against a U.S. citizen.
In either case, I am really concerned about the person traveling overseas, out of favor with the government or outspoken, that could be targeted. One day you could come home to Al Qaeda pamphlets and depictions of you with a beard looking like OBL. They won't kill you at first, they engage in dehumanization for awhile before killing you.
The slave holding founders were prepared to die to obtain their freedom to enslave more people. We should be prepared to die in a terrorist event before ceding power to the government.
Whenever you see this type activity, it is a strong indicator of criminal activity and corruption within these organizations. Therefore, I don't want to entrust any government organization with this authority without due process/trial by absentia.
There are some circumstances whereby the government can condemn you to death during a hostage situation. This is clearly not the case. Additionally, they also targeted his children and condemned them to death, a person that was born in Colorado. This is a hit job conducted by the U.S. military against a U.S. citizen.
In either case, I am really concerned about the person traveling overseas, out of favor with the government or outspoken, that could be targeted. One day you could come home to Al Qaeda pamphlets and depictions of you with a beard looking like OBL. They won't kill you at first, they engage in dehumanization for awhile before killing you.
The slave holding founders were prepared to die to obtain their freedom to enslave more people. We should be prepared to die in a terrorist event before ceding power to the government.
Last edited:
The government (local and federal) have culture of secrecy and coverup based on how whistleblowers are attacked and fired. This is similar to Mexican drug cartels or the Mafia which go after members that testify or speak out about crimes that were committed. I have personally witnessed the government hide information from the American people and engage in cover up activities.
Whenever you see this type activity, it is a strong indicator of criminal activity and corruption within these organizations. Therefore, I don't want to entrust any government organization with this authority without due process/trial by absentia.
There are some circumstances whereby the government can condemn you to death during a hostage situation. This is clearly not the case. Additionally, they also targeted his children and condemned them to death, a person that was born in Colorado.
In either case, I am really concerned about the person traveling overseas, out of favor with the government or outspoken, that could be targeted. The slave holding founders were prepared to die to obtain their freedom to enslave more people. We should be prepared to die in a terrorist event before ceding power to the government.
Were you responding to my specific questions in particular, or to the various posts, in general ???
`
I was just responding in general. People should have a healthy dose of skepticism with any assurances provided by the government. This is based on how whistleblowers are attacked in these organizations which provide a strong indicator of criminality, surveillance, and other corrupt type activity.
These people should be celebrated when they ferret out this type activity in the government, because it diminishes public trust with the government and undermines democratic values.
I don't want anybody building a data center to collect 100 years of traffic data. I would rather sit in a plane condemn to a terrorist attack than cede authority to the government to 'protect' me.
These people should be celebrated when they ferret out this type activity in the government, because it diminishes public trust with the government and undermines democratic values.
I don't want anybody building a data center to collect 100 years of traffic data. I would rather sit in a plane condemn to a terrorist attack than cede authority to the government to 'protect' me.
I can understand why people should be skeptical. History teaches us that sometimes, where there is smoke, there is fire. But I don't know about skepticism in the absence of smoke or even the apparent smell of smoke.
.
I don't know the answers to those questions. I don't have any non-contradictory answers in my head.
That's why I wished they spent time speaking about those questioned rather than talking about drones.
"The Senate Intelligence Committee staff has held 35 monthly, in-depth oversight meetings with government officials to review strike records (including video footage) and question every aspect of the program," Feinstein said in an unusual statement detailing what she describe as the Senate panel's "robust oversight" of the program.
Feinstein also said the committee has been requesting memos on the legal basis for targeted killing programs since 2010, even earlier than Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has reported asking for them. Last week, President Barack Obama personally called panel members to say he'd agreed to show them a couple of key memos which members said related to Anwar Al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric and Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula leader killed in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011.
House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) has said his panel reviews the so-called "packages" of intelligence used to select targets for the strikes.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...ees-videos-of-drone-strikes-156928.html?hp=r7
Judge weighs rights of U.S. citizens in drone strikes
Judge weighs rights of U.S. citizens in drone strikes
By David Ingram | Reuters
Fri, Jul 19, 2013
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge fired difficult questions at the Obama administration and at civil liberties lawyers on Friday in a court case about whether U.S. citizens abroad targeted in drone strikes can seek compensation from the government.
At a hearing in U.S. District Court in Washington, Judge Rosemary Collyer said she would rule as soon as she could, at least on the preliminary question of whether citizens or their family members have a right to bring a lawsuit.
The U.S. government acknowledged in May that it had killed four Americans in drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan since 2009 as part of its campaign against al Qaeda and affiliated groups.
The families of three of those killed, including New Mexico-born militant cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, are suing over their deaths. They argue the killings were illegal.
In a courtroom so full that people stood in the back, Collyer openly struggled with what role U.S. courts should have in overseeing the highly secretive targeted-killing program run by President Barack Obama and his senior staff.
She reacted skeptically to U.S. Justice Department lawyer Brian Hauck, who urged Collyer to leave the program's work to the military and the White House. "The executive is not an effective check on the executive when it comes to a person's constitutional rights," Collyer said.
To civil liberties lawyers who argued the killings took place away from active hostilities, Collyer said that the United States is at war against a diffuse group of militants without a clearly defined battleground.
"There is no doubt that al Qaeda attacked the United States in 2001, and that the organization has called for continued attacks against U.S. interests around the world," she said.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, both based in New York, represent the families.
Hina Shamsi and Pardiss Kebriaei, lawyers for the groups respectively, said that in killing the Americans the government violated fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution to due process and to be free from unreasonable seizure.
The lawyers also said that for those rights to be meaningful for U.S. citizens, the families of those killed must be able to assert those rights in a courtroom.
Collyer countered that the lawsuit was highly unusual, and she wondered what documents the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights might demand from the government if she allowed the lawsuit to move forward.
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-weighs-rights-u-citizens-drone-strikes-170804699.html
Judge weighs rights of U.S. citizens in drone strikes
By David Ingram | Reuters
Fri, Jul 19, 2013
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge fired difficult questions at the Obama administration and at civil liberties lawyers on Friday in a court case about whether U.S. citizens abroad targeted in drone strikes can seek compensation from the government.
At a hearing in U.S. District Court in Washington, Judge Rosemary Collyer said she would rule as soon as she could, at least on the preliminary question of whether citizens or their family members have a right to bring a lawsuit.
The U.S. government acknowledged in May that it had killed four Americans in drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan since 2009 as part of its campaign against al Qaeda and affiliated groups.
The families of three of those killed, including New Mexico-born militant cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, are suing over their deaths. They argue the killings were illegal.
In a courtroom so full that people stood in the back, Collyer openly struggled with what role U.S. courts should have in overseeing the highly secretive targeted-killing program run by President Barack Obama and his senior staff.
She reacted skeptically to U.S. Justice Department lawyer Brian Hauck, who urged Collyer to leave the program's work to the military and the White House. "The executive is not an effective check on the executive when it comes to a person's constitutional rights," Collyer said.
To civil liberties lawyers who argued the killings took place away from active hostilities, Collyer said that the United States is at war against a diffuse group of militants without a clearly defined battleground.
"There is no doubt that al Qaeda attacked the United States in 2001, and that the organization has called for continued attacks against U.S. interests around the world," she said.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, both based in New York, represent the families.
Hina Shamsi and Pardiss Kebriaei, lawyers for the groups respectively, said that in killing the Americans the government violated fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution to due process and to be free from unreasonable seizure.
The lawyers also said that for those rights to be meaningful for U.S. citizens, the families of those killed must be able to assert those rights in a courtroom.
Collyer countered that the lawsuit was highly unusual, and she wondered what documents the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights might demand from the government if she allowed the lawsuit to move forward.
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-weighs-rights-u-citizens-drone-strikes-170804699.html
Obama officials weigh drone attack on US suspect
Obama officials weigh drone attack on US suspect
By KIMBERLY DOZIER | Associated Press
10 hrs ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The case of an American citizen and suspected member of al-Qaida who is allegedly planning attacks on U.S. targets overseas underscores the complexities of President Barack Obama's new stricter targeting guidelines for the use of deadly drones.
The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen. The Pentagon drones that could are barred from the country where he's hiding, and the Justice Department has not yet finished building a case against him.
Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.
Two of the officials described the man as an al-Qaida facilitator who has been directly responsible for deadly attacks against U.S. citizens overseas and who continues to plan attacks against them that would use improvised explosive devices.
The officials said the suspected terrorist is well-guarded and in a fairly remote location, so any unilateral attempt by U.S. troops to capture him would be risky and even more politically explosive than a U.S. missile strike.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday he would not comment on specific operations and pointed to Obama's comments in the major counterterrorism speech last May about drone policy.
"When a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team," Carney said, quoting from Obama's speech last year.
Under new guidelines Obama addressed in the speech made to calm anger overseas at the extent of the U.S. drone campaign, lethal force must only be used "to prevent or stop attacks against U.S. persons, and even then, only when capture is not feasible and no other reasonable alternatives exist to address the threat effectively." The target must also pose "a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons" — the legal definition of catching someone in the act of plotting a lethal attack.
The Associated Press has agreed to the government's request to withhold the name of the country where the suspected terrorist is believed to be because officials said publishing it could interrupt ongoing counterterror operations.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the classified drone targeting program publicly.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., complained last week that a number of terrorist suspects were all but out of reach under the administration's new rules that limit drone strikes based on the target's nationality or location. Two of the U.S. officials said the Justice Department review of the American suspected terrorist started last fall.
The senior administration official confirmed that the Justice Department was working to build a case against the suspected terrorist. The official said, however, the legal procedure being followed is the same as when the U.S. killed militant cleric and former Virginia resident Anwar al-Awlaki by drone in Yemen in 2011, long before the new targeted killing policy took effect.
The official said the president could make an exception to his policy and authorize the CIA to strike on a onetime basis or authorize the Pentagon to act despite the possible objections of the country in question.
The Justice Department, the Pentagon and the CIA declined to comment.
If the target is an American citizen, the Justice Department is required to show that killing the person through military action is "legal and constitutional"— in this case, that the Pentagon can take action against the American, as the administration has ruled him an enemy combatant under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, a resolution Congress passed a week after the 9/11 attacks to target al-Qaida.
"So little has changed since last year, when it comes to government secrecy over killings," said Amnesty International's Naureen Shah on Monday. "The policy is still the stuff of official secrecy and speculation, when it should be a matter of open debate and explicit constraints."
The administration says U.S. drones have killed four Americans since 2009, including al-Awlaki, who officials said was actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens.
Attorney General Eric Holder said the three other Americans were killed by drones, but were not targeted. The three are Samir Khan, who was killed in the same drone strike as al-Awlaki; al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, a native of Denver who was killed in Yemen two weeks later; and Jude Kenan Mohammed, who was killed in a drone strike in Pakistan.
The case has galvanized congressional opponents of Obama's plan to transfer drones from the CIA to the Defense Department. Before the plan was announced, either CIA or Pentagon drones could go after terrorist targets, even if they were U.S. citizens. The CIA could also fly drones in areas where host countries might object. But by law, the Pentagon can only strike in war zones, in countries that agree to U.S. counterterrorism action or in lawless areas like parts of Somalia where that government's security forces cannot reach. Even then only al-Qaida-linked suspects can be targeted.
"It is very clear that there have been missed opportunities that I believe increase the risk of the lives of our soldiers and for disrupting operations underway," Rogers said last week.
U.S. officials said both Senate and House appropriators have blocked funding that would transfer the CIA's stealth RQ-170 drone fleet to the Pentagon. Some lawmakers want the White House to first come up with a fix for targeting suspects in areas where the Pentagon is banned from operating — either by leaving some part of the CIA operation running or by granting the Pentagon authority to strike covertly despite the location — meaning they could legally deny the operation.
Lawmakers like Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have also objected to the shift to the Pentagon, arguing that the CIA has more experience flying drones. U.S. officials say Pentagon chiefs defending their drone program in closed congressional session last week pointed out that the same cadre of Air Force pilots fly both the CIA and the Pentagon drones.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-officials-weigh-drone-attack-us-suspect-200554380--politics.html
Obama officials weigh drone attack on US suspect
By KIMBERLY DOZIER | Associated Press
10 hrs ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The case of an American citizen and suspected member of al-Qaida who is allegedly planning attacks on U.S. targets overseas underscores the complexities of President Barack Obama's new stricter targeting guidelines for the use of deadly drones.
The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen. The Pentagon drones that could are barred from the country where he's hiding, and the Justice Department has not yet finished building a case against him.
Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.
Two of the officials described the man as an al-Qaida facilitator who has been directly responsible for deadly attacks against U.S. citizens overseas and who continues to plan attacks against them that would use improvised explosive devices.
The officials said the suspected terrorist is well-guarded and in a fairly remote location, so any unilateral attempt by U.S. troops to capture him would be risky and even more politically explosive than a U.S. missile strike.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday he would not comment on specific operations and pointed to Obama's comments in the major counterterrorism speech last May about drone policy.
"When a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team," Carney said, quoting from Obama's speech last year.
Under new guidelines Obama addressed in the speech made to calm anger overseas at the extent of the U.S. drone campaign, lethal force must only be used "to prevent or stop attacks against U.S. persons, and even then, only when capture is not feasible and no other reasonable alternatives exist to address the threat effectively." The target must also pose "a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons" — the legal definition of catching someone in the act of plotting a lethal attack.
The Associated Press has agreed to the government's request to withhold the name of the country where the suspected terrorist is believed to be because officials said publishing it could interrupt ongoing counterterror operations.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the classified drone targeting program publicly.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., complained last week that a number of terrorist suspects were all but out of reach under the administration's new rules that limit drone strikes based on the target's nationality or location. Two of the U.S. officials said the Justice Department review of the American suspected terrorist started last fall.
The senior administration official confirmed that the Justice Department was working to build a case against the suspected terrorist. The official said, however, the legal procedure being followed is the same as when the U.S. killed militant cleric and former Virginia resident Anwar al-Awlaki by drone in Yemen in 2011, long before the new targeted killing policy took effect.
The official said the president could make an exception to his policy and authorize the CIA to strike on a onetime basis or authorize the Pentagon to act despite the possible objections of the country in question.
The Justice Department, the Pentagon and the CIA declined to comment.
If the target is an American citizen, the Justice Department is required to show that killing the person through military action is "legal and constitutional"— in this case, that the Pentagon can take action against the American, as the administration has ruled him an enemy combatant under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, a resolution Congress passed a week after the 9/11 attacks to target al-Qaida.
"So little has changed since last year, when it comes to government secrecy over killings," said Amnesty International's Naureen Shah on Monday. "The policy is still the stuff of official secrecy and speculation, when it should be a matter of open debate and explicit constraints."
The administration says U.S. drones have killed four Americans since 2009, including al-Awlaki, who officials said was actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens.
Attorney General Eric Holder said the three other Americans were killed by drones, but were not targeted. The three are Samir Khan, who was killed in the same drone strike as al-Awlaki; al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, a native of Denver who was killed in Yemen two weeks later; and Jude Kenan Mohammed, who was killed in a drone strike in Pakistan.
The case has galvanized congressional opponents of Obama's plan to transfer drones from the CIA to the Defense Department. Before the plan was announced, either CIA or Pentagon drones could go after terrorist targets, even if they were U.S. citizens. The CIA could also fly drones in areas where host countries might object. But by law, the Pentagon can only strike in war zones, in countries that agree to U.S. counterterrorism action or in lawless areas like parts of Somalia where that government's security forces cannot reach. Even then only al-Qaida-linked suspects can be targeted.
"It is very clear that there have been missed opportunities that I believe increase the risk of the lives of our soldiers and for disrupting operations underway," Rogers said last week.
U.S. officials said both Senate and House appropriators have blocked funding that would transfer the CIA's stealth RQ-170 drone fleet to the Pentagon. Some lawmakers want the White House to first come up with a fix for targeting suspects in areas where the Pentagon is banned from operating — either by leaving some part of the CIA operation running or by granting the Pentagon authority to strike covertly despite the location — meaning they could legally deny the operation.
Lawmakers like Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have also objected to the shift to the Pentagon, arguing that the CIA has more experience flying drones. U.S. officials say Pentagon chiefs defending their drone program in closed congressional session last week pointed out that the same cadre of Air Force pilots fly both the CIA and the Pentagon drones.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-officials-weigh-drone-attack-us-suspect-200554380--politics.html
Debate: Should The President Be Able To Order Citizens Killed Abroad?
Debate: Should The President Be Able To Order Citizens Killed Abroad? (50:24)
by NPR STAFF
March 13, 201410:06 AM ET
There are intense debates underway in the United States over the question of targeted killings of terrorist suspects abroad – particularly when those individuals are U.S. citizens.
Some argue that once the president has received authorization to use military force, the executive's war-making powers give him the right to target enemies at war with the United States. When an enemy is diffuse and splintered, like al-Qaida, the definition of the battlefield changes, proponents argue. And if that enemy poses a threat to the United States, even from a nontraditional battlefield, that person is a legitimate target — American citizen or not.
Others are troubled by this line of thinking. The Constitution affords all citizens the due process of law, they argue, and defining the battlefield so broadly undermines the intent of the Founding Fathers. Killing outside of the U.S. justice system, they say, must only be a last resort in response to a truly imminent threat.
Two teams recently debated the motion, "The president has constitutional power to target and kill U.S. citizens abroad," in an Oxford-style debate for Intelligence Squared U.S. In these events, the team that sways the most people by the end of the debate is declared the winner.
Those debating were:
AGAINST THE MOTION
Hina Shamsi is the director of the ACLU's National Security Project, which focuses on U.S. counterterrorism policies and practices that violate the Constitution or the U.S.'s obligations under international law. Shamsi has been involved in the legal proceedings of numerous cases about post-Sept. 11 torture, unlawful detention, discrimination against racial and religious minorities, and the freedoms of speech and association. She teaches a Columbia Law School course on international human rights and has monitored and reported on the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay.
Noah Feldman is a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine and Bloomberg View and the author of five books, on topics from constitutional law to the ethics of nation-building. He helped draft the Iraqi interim constitution, or Transitional Administrative Law, with members of the Iraqi Governing Council and served as senior constitutional adviser to the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Feldman is a law professor at Harvard University and a senior fellow of the Society of Fellows. He studied Islamic thought at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar.
FOR THE MOTION
Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard Law School. He has published more than 1,000 articles in magazines, newspapers, journals and blogs such as The New York Times Magazine, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Harvard Law Review, The Yale Law Journal and Huffington Post. Dershowitz is the author of numerous best-selling books, including his autobiography, Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law.
Michael Lewis, also a Harvard Law School professor, has written extensively on various aspects of the laws of war and the conflict between the U.S. and al-Qaida. Lewis has testified before Congress on the legality of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen and on the civil liberties trade-offs associated with trying some al-Qaida members or terrorist suspects before military commissions. Prior to earning his J.D. from Harvard Law School, he served in the U.S. Navy from 1987 to 1995.
http://www.npr.org/2014/03/13/289426881/debate-should-the-president-be-able-to-kill-citizens-abroad
Debate: Should The President Be Able To Order Citizens Killed Abroad? (50:24)
by NPR STAFF
March 13, 201410:06 AM ET
There are intense debates underway in the United States over the question of targeted killings of terrorist suspects abroad – particularly when those individuals are U.S. citizens.
Some argue that once the president has received authorization to use military force, the executive's war-making powers give him the right to target enemies at war with the United States. When an enemy is diffuse and splintered, like al-Qaida, the definition of the battlefield changes, proponents argue. And if that enemy poses a threat to the United States, even from a nontraditional battlefield, that person is a legitimate target — American citizen or not.
Others are troubled by this line of thinking. The Constitution affords all citizens the due process of law, they argue, and defining the battlefield so broadly undermines the intent of the Founding Fathers. Killing outside of the U.S. justice system, they say, must only be a last resort in response to a truly imminent threat.
Two teams recently debated the motion, "The president has constitutional power to target and kill U.S. citizens abroad," in an Oxford-style debate for Intelligence Squared U.S. In these events, the team that sways the most people by the end of the debate is declared the winner.
Those debating were:
AGAINST THE MOTION
Hina Shamsi is the director of the ACLU's National Security Project, which focuses on U.S. counterterrorism policies and practices that violate the Constitution or the U.S.'s obligations under international law. Shamsi has been involved in the legal proceedings of numerous cases about post-Sept. 11 torture, unlawful detention, discrimination against racial and religious minorities, and the freedoms of speech and association. She teaches a Columbia Law School course on international human rights and has monitored and reported on the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay.
Noah Feldman is a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine and Bloomberg View and the author of five books, on topics from constitutional law to the ethics of nation-building. He helped draft the Iraqi interim constitution, or Transitional Administrative Law, with members of the Iraqi Governing Council and served as senior constitutional adviser to the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Feldman is a law professor at Harvard University and a senior fellow of the Society of Fellows. He studied Islamic thought at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar.
FOR THE MOTION
Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard Law School. He has published more than 1,000 articles in magazines, newspapers, journals and blogs such as The New York Times Magazine, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Harvard Law Review, The Yale Law Journal and Huffington Post. Dershowitz is the author of numerous best-selling books, including his autobiography, Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law.
Michael Lewis, also a Harvard Law School professor, has written extensively on various aspects of the laws of war and the conflict between the U.S. and al-Qaida. Lewis has testified before Congress on the legality of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen and on the civil liberties trade-offs associated with trying some al-Qaida members or terrorist suspects before military commissions. Prior to earning his J.D. from Harvard Law School, he served in the U.S. Navy from 1987 to 1995.
http://www.npr.org/2014/03/13/289426881/debate-should-the-president-be-able-to-kill-citizens-abroad
Similar threads
- Poll
