SmarterthanYou
rebel
in this situation, Dung is right. there is only one way to bring this to a screeching halt and it lies with congress.
EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
- Thread starter blackascoal
- Start date
- Status
in this situation, Dung is right. there is only one way to bring this to a screeching halt and it lies with congress.
I don't doubt that Dung is right, he usually is. Nonetheless, isn't the SCOTUS supposed to check the power of the executive in situations unconstitutional?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Outrage Mounts in Media Over Obama Drone 'Kill Rules'
On Monday night, NBC News revealed that leaked sixteen-page memo outlining (at last) the administration's rules for drone strikes against US citizens abroad. Ever since, the chorus of criticism—mainly from progressives and media outlets long accused by conservatives of being "in the tank" for Obama—has grown to a deafening level.
David Carr, The New York Times' ace media reporter who does not often venture into these realms, put it this way this morning in a succinct (even for Twitter) comment: "Drones very effective at targeting and wiping out ... Rule of law."
And although the memo only covered the assassination/murder of Americans (see my piece here), it has sparked a long-overdue reappraisal of the entire drone war, which has taken the lives of thousands, including many non-combatants and children. This promises to get even hotter tomorrow with the start of the congressional confirmation hearings for drone champion (and keeper of the kill list) John Brennan as the new CIA director
The secrets are now spilling out. Suddenly we find out that the US has operated a drone base in ... wait for it ... Saudi Arabia. The media have known about it for a year, and kept it secret. The Washington Post today explains: "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."
[UPDATE: New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan, who had pushed for transparency on this issue since taking the job last summer, now hails the belated reporting of secret site: "If it was ever appropriate to withhold the information, that time was over. The drone program needs as much sunlight as possible. This is another crucial step in the right direction."]
Tom Junod at the Esquire site wrote an angry piece titled "All the King's Drones." He closes with two questions: Do “informed, high-level officials” have the power to kill their own citizens? Are “informed, high-level officials” acting in the interests of the state "ever liable to the accusation that they have committed murder?"
Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic compared Obama to Bush (ouch) on misuse of "imminent threat" claims, and more. Ta-Nehisi Coates looked at the Orwellian aspects.
The New York Times has a lengthy piece today on how the memo and the Brennan hearings finally produce a moment in the sun for the "dangers" of drone strikes. It opens with the wrongful killing of a man in Yemen who could have helped the US. There's one chilling account of two innocent men killed simply because five suspected terrorists had hitched a ride with them.
Could the targeted killing campaign be creating more militants in Yemen than it is killing? And is it in America’s long-term interest to be waging war against a self-renewing insurgency inside a country about which Washington has at best a hazy understanding?
Several former top military and intelligence officials—including Stanley A. McChrystal, the retired general who led the Joint Special Operations Command, which has responsibility for the military’s drone strikes, and Michael V. Hayden, the former CIA director—have raised concerns that the drone wars in Pakistan and Yemen are increasingly targeting low-level militants who do not pose a direct threat to the United States.
In an interview with Reuters, General McChrystal said that drones could be a useful tool but were “hated on a visceral level” in some of the places where they were used and contributed to a “perception of American arrogance.”
And the Times in an editorial today observes that while the Obama drone kill policy outlined in the memo was not exactly a surprise "it was disturbing to see the twisted logic of the administration’s lawyers laid out in black and white. It had the air of a legal justification written after the fact for a policy decision that had already been made, and it brought back unwelcome memories of memos written for President George W. Bush to justify illegal wiretapping, indefinite detention, kidnapping, abuse and torture."
http://www.thenation.com/blog/172694/outrage-mounts-media-over-obama-drone-kill-rules
On Monday night, NBC News revealed that leaked sixteen-page memo outlining (at last) the administration's rules for drone strikes against US citizens abroad. Ever since, the chorus of criticism—mainly from progressives and media outlets long accused by conservatives of being "in the tank" for Obama—has grown to a deafening level.
David Carr, The New York Times' ace media reporter who does not often venture into these realms, put it this way this morning in a succinct (even for Twitter) comment: "Drones very effective at targeting and wiping out ... Rule of law."
And although the memo only covered the assassination/murder of Americans (see my piece here), it has sparked a long-overdue reappraisal of the entire drone war, which has taken the lives of thousands, including many non-combatants and children. This promises to get even hotter tomorrow with the start of the congressional confirmation hearings for drone champion (and keeper of the kill list) John Brennan as the new CIA director
The secrets are now spilling out. Suddenly we find out that the US has operated a drone base in ... wait for it ... Saudi Arabia. The media have known about it for a year, and kept it secret. The Washington Post today explains: "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."
[UPDATE: New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan, who had pushed for transparency on this issue since taking the job last summer, now hails the belated reporting of secret site: "If it was ever appropriate to withhold the information, that time was over. The drone program needs as much sunlight as possible. This is another crucial step in the right direction."]
Tom Junod at the Esquire site wrote an angry piece titled "All the King's Drones." He closes with two questions: Do “informed, high-level officials” have the power to kill their own citizens? Are “informed, high-level officials” acting in the interests of the state "ever liable to the accusation that they have committed murder?"
Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic compared Obama to Bush (ouch) on misuse of "imminent threat" claims, and more. Ta-Nehisi Coates looked at the Orwellian aspects.
The New York Times has a lengthy piece today on how the memo and the Brennan hearings finally produce a moment in the sun for the "dangers" of drone strikes. It opens with the wrongful killing of a man in Yemen who could have helped the US. There's one chilling account of two innocent men killed simply because five suspected terrorists had hitched a ride with them.
Could the targeted killing campaign be creating more militants in Yemen than it is killing? And is it in America’s long-term interest to be waging war against a self-renewing insurgency inside a country about which Washington has at best a hazy understanding?
Several former top military and intelligence officials—including Stanley A. McChrystal, the retired general who led the Joint Special Operations Command, which has responsibility for the military’s drone strikes, and Michael V. Hayden, the former CIA director—have raised concerns that the drone wars in Pakistan and Yemen are increasingly targeting low-level militants who do not pose a direct threat to the United States.
In an interview with Reuters, General McChrystal said that drones could be a useful tool but were “hated on a visceral level” in some of the places where they were used and contributed to a “perception of American arrogance.”
And the Times in an editorial today observes that while the Obama drone kill policy outlined in the memo was not exactly a surprise "it was disturbing to see the twisted logic of the administration’s lawyers laid out in black and white. It had the air of a legal justification written after the fact for a policy decision that had already been made, and it brought back unwelcome memories of memos written for President George W. Bush to justify illegal wiretapping, indefinite detention, kidnapping, abuse and torture."
http://www.thenation.com/blog/172694/outrage-mounts-media-over-obama-drone-kill-rules
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Drone Strike Limitations Considered By Congress After Justice Department Memo Surfaces
WASHINGTON -- Uncomfortable with the Obama administration's use of deadly drones, a growing number in Congress is looking to limit America's authority to kill suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens. The Democratic-led outcry was emboldened by the revelation in a newly surfaced Justice Department memo that shows drones can strike against a wider range of threats, with less evidence, than previously believed.
The drone program, which has been used from Pakistan across the Middle East and into North Africa to find and kill an unknown number of suspected terrorists, is expected to be a top topic of debate when the Senate Intelligence Committee grills John Brennan, the White House's pick for CIA chief, at a hearing Thursday.
The White House on Tuesday defended its lethal drone program by citing the very laws that some in Congress once believed were appropriate in the years immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks but now think may be too broad.
"It has to be in the agenda of this Congress to reconsider the scope of action of drones and use of deadly force by the United States around the world because the original authorization of use of force, I think, is being strained to its limits," Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said in a recent interview.
Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, said Tuesday that "it deserves a serious look at how we make the decisions in government to take out, kill, eliminate, whatever word you want to use, not just American citizens but other citizens as well."
Hoyer added: "We ought to carefully review our policies as a country."
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee likely will hold hearings on U.S. drone policy, an aide said Tuesday, and Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, both have quietly expressed concerns about the deadly operations. And earlier this week, a group of 11 Democratic and Republican senators urged President Barack Obama to release a classified Justice Department legal opinion justifying when U.S. counterterror missions, including drone strikes, can be used to kill American citizens abroad.
Without those documents, it's impossible for Congress and the public to decide "whether this authority has been properly defined, and whether the president's power to deliberately kill Americans is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards," the senators wrote.
---
The memo was immediately decried by civil liberties groups as "flawed" and "profoundly disturbing" – especially in light of 2011 U.S. drone strikes in Yemen that killed three American citizens: Anwar al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old-son and Samir Khan. Al-Awlaki was linked to the planning and execution of several attacks targeting U.S. and Western interests, including the attempt to down a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009 and the plot to bomb cargo planes in 2010. His son was killed in a separate strike on a suspected al-Qaida den. Khan was an al-Qaida propagandist.
more
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/drone-strike-congress_n_2627556.html
WASHINGTON -- Uncomfortable with the Obama administration's use of deadly drones, a growing number in Congress is looking to limit America's authority to kill suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens. The Democratic-led outcry was emboldened by the revelation in a newly surfaced Justice Department memo that shows drones can strike against a wider range of threats, with less evidence, than previously believed.
The drone program, which has been used from Pakistan across the Middle East and into North Africa to find and kill an unknown number of suspected terrorists, is expected to be a top topic of debate when the Senate Intelligence Committee grills John Brennan, the White House's pick for CIA chief, at a hearing Thursday.
The White House on Tuesday defended its lethal drone program by citing the very laws that some in Congress once believed were appropriate in the years immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks but now think may be too broad.
"It has to be in the agenda of this Congress to reconsider the scope of action of drones and use of deadly force by the United States around the world because the original authorization of use of force, I think, is being strained to its limits," Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said in a recent interview.
Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, said Tuesday that "it deserves a serious look at how we make the decisions in government to take out, kill, eliminate, whatever word you want to use, not just American citizens but other citizens as well."
Hoyer added: "We ought to carefully review our policies as a country."
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee likely will hold hearings on U.S. drone policy, an aide said Tuesday, and Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, both have quietly expressed concerns about the deadly operations. And earlier this week, a group of 11 Democratic and Republican senators urged President Barack Obama to release a classified Justice Department legal opinion justifying when U.S. counterterror missions, including drone strikes, can be used to kill American citizens abroad.
Without those documents, it's impossible for Congress and the public to decide "whether this authority has been properly defined, and whether the president's power to deliberately kill Americans is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards," the senators wrote.
---
The memo was immediately decried by civil liberties groups as "flawed" and "profoundly disturbing" – especially in light of 2011 U.S. drone strikes in Yemen that killed three American citizens: Anwar al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old-son and Samir Khan. Al-Awlaki was linked to the planning and execution of several attacks targeting U.S. and Western interests, including the attempt to down a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009 and the plot to bomb cargo planes in 2010. His son was killed in a separate strike on a suspected al-Qaida den. Khan was an al-Qaida propagandist.
more
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/drone-strike-congress_n_2627556.html
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
You are just being racist. You wouldn't be complaining if this were a cracker
SmarterthanYou
rebel
only in matters that intrude upon the courts purview. when it intrudes upon the powers of congress, it's the responsbility of congress to check the president. that's why they have the power of impeachment.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
double
Last edited:
The feds have been foregoing due process on thousands of things for centuries, since we became a nation. It's called responsible governance in MOST cases and it's certainly that in THIS case. You wanna break ranks with your fellow citizens and call yourself an enemy combatant of the United States? Good luck with that, cowgirl. There is quite correctly a price to be paid for that decision.
The argument involving hypotheticals falls on deaf ears with me. I asked you to show examples. None being forthcoming I must assume you're just full of shit, as I predicted. What was it John Boener said on the house floor? If if's and buts were candy and nuts the congress would all be home for christmas.? Or something to that effect? I also subscribe to that philosophy.
Canceled.2014.1
New member
So until the gov't actually murders a US citizen, its not an issue?
Keep telling yourself that over and over .. then close your eyes and click your heels 3 times. Perhaps then you'll be whisked away to the land of critical thought.
If you actually were a critical thinker, your response to Turley's sane and rational thought would not have been "Blah, blah, blah." It's just that simple.
You're not interested in actual debate dude .. you're just here to cover Obama's ass.
Yeah, and you keep pulling your childish and self centered bullshit. You may impress some with your crap but you don't impress me in the least.
Johnathan Turley? Sane and rational? Just what decisions has he made that have any effect whatsoever on anyone other than himself? Isn't he a newsroom commentator? My blah, blah, blah comment was directed to YOU, not the Esq. Turley.
Debate? I've never seen you debate. You spew your nonsensical bullshit and others, including me, do the same. We never change each others minds and we never produce any consensus. What we have here are discussions and opinions mainly. Occasionally we have some genuine sharing of important news events and that is why I stay in the Current Events Forum.
Cover Obama's ass? You're delusional. I'm here to discuss the memo, the policy, the real intent of all of it. I am in total agreement with the intent of it even if it doesn't include every single word that I'd like to see in it or even if it does include words that I'd rather it not. In my life I've seen very few policies or memos or whatever that are perfect. I think perfection is more in line with your particular brand of insanity.
You make make plenty of assumptions, dumberthananyoneIevermet. The real deal is that I DO care. I care about our troops, I care about my country, I care about the President and his success and mainly I care about ME and how I might feel if I was back in the land of the enemies and how the decisions from the CIC and the Pentagon are going to effect ME.
We will probably disagree forever on the constitutional issues of the memo which I find hilarious coming from someone such as yourself on THIS particular issue. It means nothing. Our argument will not change a thing. If there is something unconstitutional about the memo I am certain someone will be taking it to some court somewhere. First off, there has to be a plaintiff that can show some harm has been done to them. The USA or the office of the CIC stands ready as a defendant. A plaintiff not forthcoming, no court action will be taken. Simple.
More hypotheticals? Fuck off, WB.
Canceled.2014.1
New member
Just pointing out that you do not want to discuss an issue. You come in making noise, but you have no ability to debate. In order to continue you want me to list what will happen, but you ridicule hypothetical situations. Yeah, that is great. Here, cook us dinner, but no using any cooking utensils or heat.
Look numbnuts, if you don't have what it takes to actually discuss an issue, I have no problem with that. But don't come in here all badass, talking shit about everyone, and offer no more than simplistic nonsense and asides that have no bearing on the topic.
Just let us know when you'll be going down to physically attack those folks who are legally wearing a sidearm.
I came in with an opinion based on the facts as I see them. Others, mainly you, stomp through the door whining about hypotheticals that make no sense whatsoever. The topic is the memo, dumbass. You don't like it, the memo, but you only have ridiculous assertions and wild eyed fear driven "what if's" to demonstrate your own ignorance. That, my friend, is ALL you have.
Since I spoke with you last on the gun monkey issues I have had several confrontations with a few of them. Although no blows were delivered I've found that the pissyassed cowboys are quite willing to put their penis extenders back in the truck where they belong. I've also found that the establishment management where these occurrences have happened are in total support of me and my side of that particular issue. And so are the police. Ain't living in America GRAND!!!!!!!!!
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
But therein lies the rub.
Your opinion is based on the facts as you see them; but you dismiss everything and anything that does fit within your myopic view.
Myopic view? Interesting, coming from you. Laughable.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I know the sunlight of actuality hurts your eyes.
So far in this conversation I am the only one that has shown any degree of actuality. Everyone else seems stuck in lalalala land with only unfounded assertions and skepticism to share.
Considering that you keep your head up your ass all the time, how would you know anything about sunshine of anything?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Fortunetly that is just your opinion and you are entitled to your own opinion; you're just not entitled to your own facts.
Feel free to return with some of those facts, as soon as you educate yourself; but make sure you announce that that is what you're doing; because your abysmal track record might just hide the tiny increase in your IQ.
- Status