General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama Discusses Targeted Killing of U.S. Citizens During Google+ Hangout
by Micah Zenko
<...>
Question: “A lot of people are very concerned that your administration now believes that it is legal to have drone strikes against American citizens. And whether or not that is specifically allowed versus citizens within the United States. And if that is not true what will you do to create a legal framework to make American citizens within the United States believe know that drone strikes cannot be used against American citizens?”
Obama: “First of all, I think, there’s never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil. And, you know, we respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct counterterrorism operations outside the United States. The rules outside the United States are going to be different then the rules inside the United States. In part because our capacity to, for example, to capture a terrorist inside the United States are very different then in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.”
“But what I think is absolutely true is that it is not sufficient for citizens to just take my word for it that we are doing the right thing. I am the head of the executive branch. And what we’ve done so far is to try to work with Congress on oversight issues. But part of what I am going to have to work with Congress on is to make sure that whatever it is we’re providing Congress, that we have mechanisms to also make sure that the public understands what’s going on, what the constraints are, what the legal parameters are. And that is something that I take very seriously. I am not someone who believes that the president has the authority to do whatever he wants, or whatever she wants, whenever they want, just under the guise of counterterrorism. There have to be legal checks and balances on it.”
http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/02/15/obama-discusses-targeted-killing-of-u-s-citizens-during-google-hangout/
Obama: No drones used on American soil (video)
http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/02/obama-no-drones-used-on-american-soil.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leveymg
(36,418 posts)safeguards" doesn't really cut it, considering the targeted kill list they've actually used has included propagandists and a minor child.
"'A whole bunch of safeguards' doesn't really cut it, considering the targeted kill list they've actually used has included propagandists and a minor child."
...that's completely inaccurate. A "minor child" was not targeted.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It seems that at least half a dozen others died along with him when the CIA targeted the restaurant where he was eating with his 17 year old cousin.
From the Wiki:
Human rights groups have raised questions as to why Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, an American teenager, was killed by the U.S. in a country with which the United States is not at war. Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, stated "If the government is going to be firing Predator missiles at American citizens, surely the American public has a right to know who’s being targeted, and why."[7]
Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[7] Another U.S. administration official described Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time", stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered.[7]
In the days following the strike that killed Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, U.S. officials suggested that Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi was not a teenager, but rather a "military-age male" in his 20s.[8] The claim that Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi was a "military-age male" was used as justification for his killing.[citation needed] However, Aulaqi’s family refuted the U.S.'s claim that Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi was of military age by releasing a copy of his U.S. birth certificate showing that he was born on August 26, 1995 and was aged 16 at the time of his death.[1]
Oh, yes, you may argue that Abdulrahman was not "targeted", it was al-Banna who they were really after. But, it seems there is a problem with that claim, as well:
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...a target. So to refute the argument that al-Banna was the target, you're using a baseless rumor that he is "still alive"?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Why should I give more credibility to the drone operators than I do to the writer for Esquire and other sources on this issue?
It looks like they targeted al-Awlaki, a US citizen, and then his teenage son - they didn't seem to much care who else they had to kill in the process of blowing up the 16 year old, given that he was sitting in a restaurant at the time. They crossed several lines there.
The CIA can't be trusted with this arbitrary power as judge, jury and executioner, nor can the President.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Why should I give more credibility to the drone operators than I do to the writer for Esquire and other sources on this issue? "
...maybe because there is no evidence other than an unsourced third-party statement in the article. In fact, it seems the piece simply runs through a series of claims and speculations.
"It looks like they targeted al-Awlaki, a US citizen, and then his teenage son - they didn't seem to much care who else they had to kill in the process of blowing up the 16 year old, given that he was sitting in a restaurant at the time. They crossed several lines there."
It looks like? There is no evidence that he was a target. I mean, is it really necessary to conflate the fact that he was killed with the list of targets? Is this another meme that's needed?
"The CIA can't be trusted with this arbitrary power as judge, jury and executioner, nor can the President."
Where did I suggest that?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)and the CIA's motives for killing him, apparently.
The former head of the CIA Bin Laden Unit admits Al-Awlaki was a US Intel Asset.
This guy was much more than a propagandist hater. He was a double-agent who played a role in identifying numerous al-Qaeda operatives involved in attacks on the US during the last ten years, before the fact of the attacks -- from the guys who flew Flt. 77 into the Pentagon, to the shoe bomber, to the Ft. Hood shooter, to the Underwear bomber. The only question is how witting his role was as the spider at the center of the CIA (and/or) DIA (and/or) FBI web(s).
Killing him means Anwar al-Awlaki will never talk about what he understood his actual role was. Nor will the kid.
"The former head of the CIA Bin Laden Unit admits Al-Awlaki was a US Intel Asset.
This guy was much more than a propagandist hater. He was a double-agent who played a role in identifying numerous al-Qaeda operatives involved in attacks on the US during the last ten years..."
...was a terrorist and an evil CIA agent?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:48 AM - Edit history (2)
is double-agent who has become unreliable or lost his operational usefulness, although agent-provocateur also fits in this case.
Al-Awlaki lasted way past his shelf life in the GWOT. Finally, he was thrown into the cutout bin.
The President was not pleased the underwear bomber got as far as the airspace over Detroit on Christmas Day, 2009. Even less so about the publicity attached to the role of others in getting him onto that airplane, leading back to Awlaki (who was also involved in aiding the Flt. 77 hijackers, the Ft Hood shooter, and the Times Square bomber). In the end, al-Awlaki's role as a U.S. agent was all but admitted to by U.S. officials.
Did Anwar al-Awlaki become unreliable or lose his operational usefulness?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The President was not pleased the underwear bomber got as far as the airspace over Detroit on Christmas Day. Even less so that the role of others in getting him onto that airplane, leading back to Awlaki (who was also involved in aiding the Flt. 77 hijackers, the Ft Hood shooter, and the Times Square bomber) was publicly revealed.
Did Anwar al-Awlaki become unreliable or lose his operational usefulness?"
...plot: Terrorist/CIA agent fails to provide information to prevent "underwear bomber" from entering U.S. airspace so he's targeted for killing.
He was a terrorist agent, we agree. You believe he was also a double agent for the corrupt CIA. It's really sordid.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)how the US Intelligence Community uses double-agents, and sometimes issues them visas and lets known terrorists onto commercial airliners.
In an extraordinary display of candor following the attempt by the "Underwear Bomber" to set off binary explosives over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, the State Dept. acknowledged that the CIA let Abdulmutallab onto the plane knowing he was involved in a terrorist cell.
In response to Senate questions, on January 27, 2010, an official from the U.S. State Department stated that Abdulmutallab's visa was not revoked because federal authorities believed that it would have compromised a larger investigation. The official, Patrick F. Kennedy, Undersecretary of State for Management, said intelligence officials had told the State Department that letting Abdulmutallab keep his visa would allow for a greater chance of exposing the terrorist network. Here is the relevant section of Kennedy's statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 20, 2010. It explains why the State Dept. did not revoke his visa, even though he was on several terrorist watch lists: http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/testimony/testimony_5433.html
We will use (visa) revocation authority prior to interagency consultation in circumstances where we believe there is an immediate threat. Revocation is an important tool in our border security arsenal. At the same time, expeditious coordination with our national security partners is not to be underestimated. There have been numerous cases where our unilateral and uncoordinated revocation would have disrupted important investigations that were underway by one of our national security partners. They had the individual under investigation and our revocation action would have disclosed the U.S. Government’s interest in the individual and ended our colleagues’ ability to quietly pursue the case and identify terrorists’ plans and co-conspirators.
This was just one of several AQ terrorists that Anwar al-Alwaki was a point of contact with.
BTW: I never said about al-Alwaki, "Terrorist/CIA agent fails to provide information to prevent "underwear bomber" from entering U.S. airspace so he's targeted for killing." That's your misinterpretation. I said he did provide information or indicators that led to a number of actual and intending AQ terrorists, including the risky but ultimately successful operation against the Underwear Bomber. What is not entirely clear is to what degree his role in identifying these subjects was witting -- although circumstantial evidence appears to indicate to some degree he was a cooperating with the US at some point -- the decision by CIA to target him was made despite his apparent usefulness.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)are you suggesting that the President's "words" be weighed against your choice in music?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)As you demonstrate.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Words are cheap"
...words are only valuable when they're criticisms of the President, speculation about his intentions and polices, and inuendo based on cherry picked information.
I mean, here you are admitting that you're absolutely not interested in anything he has to say.
Enjoy the music.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Exactly.
And WTF is it only the US citizens who are outside the US being of concern? If they have rights outside the US, then so do foreigners outside the US. Otherwise it exalts US citizens as some sort of superior being with greater rights.
Do people think foreigners inside the U.S. can be killed without due process? I guess that would be OK with them, since it is citizenship status that matters most to them.
bigtree
(86,006 posts). . . it's not as if there's some ambiguity in the minds of those who allow and perpetuate this policy. The military and administrations' justifications all reflect back to their 9-11 mindset where there was to be nothing rendered indefensible by their inaction. More importantly, it's also part and parcel of the last administration's overreach and abuse of our very constitution, as well as our morals and values, in exploiting that defensive atmosphere to advance other unnecessarily invasive and otherwise illegal measures and practices, in the U.S. and abroad, across sovereign borders.
This administration has fought for and maintained their ability to use those same anti-constitutional means to further whatever their version of defending or advancing our 'national security' happens to be at the time. Most often, there are cautions and expressions of the limitations on their authority mouthed by the Pentagon and the President, but, when it comes down to the almost countless incidents and examples of their own overreach and immorality of their actions, the very same 'exceptional' justifications are used that we correctly criticized the Bush/Cheney regime for relying on for their Executive power-grab.
We can certainly argue that the two administrations have different motives - and we can certainly argue that this administration's faults in these concerns pales in comparison to Bush's legacy of abuses. Yet, we can't say, with any credibility, that President Obama has reversed or is reversing that rape of our constitution and our democracy. In many ways, his appropriation of those 'extra-constitutional' levers that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld introduced for his own version of their 'war on terror' has actually codified and increased the practices; as in the increased use of armed drones in those 'extra-judicial' killings.
It's all just 'war,' right?
treestar
(82,383 posts)I didn't agree with going to war but didn't have many issues with the way the war was conducted. In fact drones seem to me better than bombing villages - more surgical precision.
I just have an issue with people using "Americans" to gin up some outrage, as if Americans were the most common targets (in fact they are rare, how many al Awlakis are there - and he didn't acknowledge his US citizenship, as he entered the US on a student visa) and as if American born people magically have a right to trial and not to be killed by drone in Yemen, while native Yemeni born people can be planning and doing the same wrongs and apparently have no such rights.
The opponents of use of drones against Al Awlaki should be just against their use for the Yemeni citizens next to him, doing the same damn thing. A terrorist getting extra rights to trial during wartime just because he is abroad and happened to be born on US soil - is a technicality of the highest order. Heck if bin Laden had a US citizen with him, he could too have been protected - we couldn't risk a US citizen terrorist, with Al Qaeda getting killed in the crossfire without being accused of "extrajudicial execution."
So the whole things boils down to: our system of laws must be applied world wide. But what they are really saying is that non US citizens have no rights, so why not extend that to our soil too? If a foreigner is accused of crime then why not just apply the penalty to them without trial?
It's all a distraction meant to get a chance to say Obama=Bush and make "drones" sound like some terrible things worse than WMDs, guns, tanks, bombs, gas and all the rest of it.
bigtree
(86,006 posts)I'm convinced that the intent and motive behind the Afghanistan occupation has been flawed and the execution counterproductive, even to those stated aims of this administration in their own escalation of the misadventure. We're just coming down off of a surge in force which did little than the predictable propping up of a undeniably corrupt and centralized regime in Kabul. That Obama escalation of Bush's occupation produced little but more resistance, more killings on all sides, more deaths of innocents (a startling number as a result of our own force's offensive activity).
It took a force that was completely removed and apart from the defense of Kabul and the occupation of the provinces there to finally fulfill the intent of the original authorization to use force and kill bin-Laden. Even that understandable act is shrouded and sullied (at least in that country and region) by American disregard for sovereign borders in our prosecution of our terror war.
BTW, concern for the increased use of drones isn't a 'distraction,' it's a specific response to specific events where their 'sorry' seems to be their only mitigation of the tragic 'collateral' and inflammatory damage they inevitably incur. As long as our Pentagon and these administrations are allowed to point to that original authorization, they can bundle anything behind concern for 'national security' and 'terror'and claim they're defending America and our security interests.
Reality is, they're just defending their own prerogative to wage attacks and our national interests go far beyond national defense. I mean, this President has clearly sacrificed more lives -American, Afghan, and Pakistani - than Bush did, for what I think is a dubious assumption that the defense of the Karzai regime is a defense of our national security.
treestar
(82,383 posts)In fact if they are more surgically precise, they are better than just bombing the villages, which presumably Obama would be doing without the drones. Thus the accusation he will misuse power would apply anyway.
And the distinction of US citizens working with/as terrorists as somehow more deserving of being protected from drones, guns, bombs, etc. without trial than the people standing next to them still seems hypocritical. It's OK for Obama to "extrajudicially execute" them in the same exact same way.
Obama has always been a hawk on Afghanistan. I'm not a big expert of how it is best to conduct wars, so I could not criticize Bush much either. I did not approve of the war in the first place, but accepted that it was going to happen whether I liked it or not and always knew Obama was going to pursue that war whether I liked it or not, and since it had already been started, allow him (or the military brass, who are really deciding) to decide how to conduct it as I did Bush. At least Obama wants to put it to an end, which one would not say of Republicans.
I'd love to have peace too, but Al Qaeda does exist. The top of the "kill list" was bin Laden, and who objects to that part of the list, at least? It is a matter of degree and judgement.
bigtree
(86,006 posts)Our nation is not merely 'at war'. Our government is warring, using its subjects as fodder for the machine which gives it the most relevance. Its war machine. Before 9-11 our nation spent a full 60% of our annual budget on 'Defense', the military. Now, although most of the funding for the war is off-budget in the form of emergency appropriations, the percentage of the budget that we toil for has to be overwhelmingly weighted toward the new militarism that Bush originally subjected us to; as Pres. Obama subjects us to as he cossets his own militarism in the same jingoistic terms as his predecessor.
We are as removed from our own centers of authority as the suicide bombers are from whoever they regard as their leader. We are being cast against each other to effect a perpetual industry of aggression for the leaders to lord over.
The voice of bin-Laden's violence was as sad as anything that passes for leadership these days. He spoke as if there was no one on the battlefield except he and Bush. No homage to the suffering of Muslims caught up in the violence he advocates, no acknowledgment of the sacrifices of those who have blown their bodies to bits as weapons. He became a politician of sorts, his mandate coming from the violence he directed and advocated. He was safe and unharmed for years, all of the dying and sacrifice for others.
We are blessed with the cynicism of Orwell to, at least, reassure us of our plight:
"The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war," therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This -- although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense -- is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE."
- (Orwell, 1984)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)bigtree
(86,006 posts). . . war is an imposture.
Terrorists
Back and forth, the ascended,
Leaders hurl their followers,
Into the bloody abyss upended,
Neither of them can be bothered,
Save the ones who do the dying,
There's nothing left for the tyrants,
But to gather up more kindling,
To appease the smoldering silence,
Mourning melts grief into anger,
Brooding saviors rise to avenge,
Oblivious, now of the danger,
Their prideful posture does pretend,
Power maims to gain the ground,
Casts bold shadows across fear-ed's face,
Yet, reaps the bare Earth where death stands,
Disturbs dust which was laid to waste,
Shrouds the martyr's bloody veil,
Soils the tyrant's immaculate cloak,
Yet, Mesopotamia will prevail,
To spite the war its descendants spoke.
-- Ron Fullwood (6-10-2006)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Our nation is not merely 'at war'. Our government is warring, using its subjects as fodder for the machine which gives it the most relevance. Its war machine. Before 9-11 our nation spent a full 60% of our annual budget on 'Defense', the military. Now, although most of the funding for the war is off-budget in the form of emergency appropriations, the percentage of the budget that we toil for has to be overwhelmingly weighted toward the new militarism that Bush originally subjected us to; as Pres. Obama subjects us to as he cossets his own militarism in the same jingoistic terms as his predecessor."
The fact is that terrorists existed before 9/11, and their actions had real consequences for American lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing
The terrorist organization al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack. A U.S. judge has held Sudan liable for the attack, while another has released over $13 million in Sudanese frozen assets to the relatives of those killed. The American Navy has reconsidered their rules of engagement in response to this attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
Interestingly, there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq, although Bush linked his illegal invasion to the 9/11 attacks. His actions complicated the fight against terrorism.
The group was founded in 2003 as a reaction to the American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, and first led by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who declared allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network in October 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
Fighting terrorism is not going to have the same impact on the defense budget that illegal/ground wars do. Counterterrorism should not be confused with conventional wars.
bigtree
(86,006 posts). . . we're all waiting for the 'peace dividend,' both in economic and substantive terms.
But, if we're talking about just shifting those priorities into a new set of must-have objectives and materials without addressing our nation's overall military posture that Bush/Cheney put us in, we're not ever going to reduce that expenditure.
We're still allowing that reflexive reliance and use of that military power to achieve whatever the President or Congress defines as our national security; most of it, still, under a force authorization that specifically relates to the apprehension or killing of the 9-11 suspects. Should we just replace our Constitution with that resolution to use force against bin-laden and his gang?
There will always be those who seek to do harm to Americans or American interests. We will always look to defend against them. It should matter, though, what the effect and consequences are of the methods we employ. I think most of the prosecution of that effort, from the last administration, and this one, as well, has been a contributor to a widening of that threatening opposition to the U.S. and our interests in the region.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"But, if we're talking about just shifting those priorities into a new set of must-have objectives and materials without addressing our nation's overall military posture that Bush/Cheney put us in, we're not ever going to reduce that expenditure. "
...commentary on the defense budget.
No, it’s not to spend more—it’s to spend less, and liberals should not flinch from that position.
Barney Frank
There were so many encouraging signs for liberals in the election results this year that one of the most significant has been overlooked. For the first time in my memory, a Democratic candidate for President argued for less military spending against a Republican candidate who called for great increases—and the Democrat won <...> I have been greatly frustrated in the conversation about the need to do long-term deficit reduction by the extent to which establishment opinion focuses on “entitlements”—namely efforts to provide decent means of support for Americans in our retirement years—as a major cause of the deficit, and ignores the extremely large contribution made to this problem by military expenditures that are far beyond any rational assessment of our national security.
A Changed World
In the past few years, with President Obama having completed the withdrawal from Iraq, with the killing of Osama bin Laden, and with the announcement of a plan to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014 (too late, but an improvement over the open-ended commitment Obama inherited), it has become possible to get some political traction for our efforts to cut military spending. Because so much of that spending stems from overreach advocated by those who believe that America should be the enforcer of order everywhere in the world—and because we subsidize our wealthy European and Asian allies by providing a defense for them so they need not spend much on their own—there has been increasing conservative support for reining in the military budget...Earlier this year, for the first time that I can recall, a majority of the House of Representatives voted to reduce the military appropriation recommended by the House Appropriations Committee. The cut was only $1.1 billion—less than it should have been—but it was a decision that froze spending at the previous year’s level, and it passed by a vote of 247-167, with the support of both an overwhelming majority of Democrats (158-21) and a significant minority of Republicans (89-146).
Deficit reduction over the long term must include significant reductions in military spending along with tax increases on the very wealthy if we are to avoid devastating virtually everything we do to promote the quality of life at home. A realistic reassessment of our true national security needs would mean a military budget significantly lower not only than the one President Obama inherited, but that which he now proposes. That is, by next year, we no longer should be forced to spend additional funds—close to $200 billion a year at their peak—in Afghanistan and Iraq. Additionally, we can reduce the base budget by approximately $1 trillion over a ten-year period (this includes the $487 billion reduction that President Obama proposed in early 2012) while maintaining more than enough military strength to fully protect our security and those of our allies that genuinely need help because they are too poor and weak in the face of powerful enemies. (Should the nation decide in a democratic way to go to war again, that would require an increase in the military budget, and I would hope, in taxation to pay for it.)
Getting the military budget down to that level—which would mean a reduction of about $250 billion from what it was in the first year of the Obama Administration—faced two obstacles at the beginning of this past year. First was the traditional political concern that the Republican presidential candidate would have an advantage over the Democrat on the question of who can better protect our national security. Fortunately, Obama understood that things have changed, and that the American people are ready for a reduction in military spending. Governor Romney, operating in the traditional conservative mode, missed it. One of the most important signs that the public was ready to support a rational—i.e., significantly reduced—military budget came during Clint Eastwood’s ramble at the Republican National Convention. One of the few coherent things he said in that memorable debate that he lost to a chair was that the President should have announced his willingness to pull out of Afghanistan altogether. This criticism of the President from an antiwar position elicited cheers from the Republican delegates.
- more -
http://www.democracyjournal.org/26/the-new-mandate-on-defense.php?page=all
America’s staggering defense budget, in charts
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/
treestar
(82,383 posts)Stab at it:
50+ years of events:
Creation of Israel, leading to Arab dissatisfaction
US support of Israel
US defense, or whatever we want to call it, of Kuwait in gulf War I
Resulting US troops in Arabic countries, I believe mostly S.A.
US oil company interference
US meddling in Middle East for 40+ years of various kinds
And a bit of irrational hatred and refusal to deal with grievances by less terrible means. I can't absolve Al Qaeda members or blame the US for what they do. No one forced them to hijack 4 airplanes and kill a lot of civilians. They didn't have any concern for "due process" there.
And that would be true whether they were American citizens or not. That's the distinction that indicates some disingenuousness. If the same people were arguing that "due process" must apply across the planet in places the US has no jurisdiction, in places the US is at war with, then it should apply to all people regardless of citizenship status (as is the case inside the US).
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 24, 2013, 04:07 PM - Edit history (1)
Everyone needs to stand back and just take in that headline for a minute.
Good god. It has come to this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022420578
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Just posted a link to this OP there.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Fortunately the question is quite moot as Al Qaeda will never get a significant foothold on US soil. That hasn't happened in any large way since the British surrendered at Yorktown.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Was that some kind of animal, or a plant?
Any thoughts are appreciated.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Must have something to do with magnets.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101655620
Clearly, reestablishing Magna Carta is an unrealistic Left Wing goal....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022333107
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I heard that back in ancient America, there was something called the Judiciary
Was that some kind of animal, or a plant?
Any thoughts are appreciated."
A Court for Targeted Killings
<...>
A growing number of lawmakers and experts are beginning to recognize that some form of judicial review is necessary for these killings, usually by missiles fired from unmanned drones. Last week, at the confirmation hearing of John Brennan to be the director of the C.I.A., several senators said they were considering the establishment of a special court, similar to the one that now decides whether to approve wiretapping for intelligence gathering.
Even President Obama, in his State of the Union address, said he wanted counterterrorism to be more transparent and fully consistent with checks and balances.
<...>
“Having the executive being the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioner, all in one, is very contrary to the traditions and the laws of this country,” Senator Angus King Jr. of Maine said at the Brennan hearing. “If you’re planning a strike over a matter of days, weeks or months, there is an opportunity to at least go to some outside-of-the-executive-branch body, like the FISA Court, in a confidential and top-secret way, make the case that this American citizen is an enemy combatant.”
Mr. Brennan said the idea was worthy of discussion, adding that the Obama administration had “wrestled with this.” Two other senators, Dianne Feinstein of California, the chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, and Ron Wyden of Oregon, also expressed interest. Even Robert Gates, a former C.I.A. director who was defense secretary under President George W. Bush and President Obama, said on CNN that such a judicial panel “would give the American people confidence” that a proper case had been made against an American citizen.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/opinion/a-special-court-is-needed-to-review-targeted-killings.html
President Obama addressed controversy around how to go after terrorists and al Qaeda, promising to work with Congress on the "targeting, detention, and prosecution of terrorists," during his State of the Union address Tuesday.
"So, in the months ahead, I will continue to engage with Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention, and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world," Obama said, according to prepared remarks.
Obama also addressed the state of America's work to stop terrorists abroad.
Today, the organization that attacked us on 9/11 is a shadow of its former self. Different al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged – from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa. The threat these groups pose is evolving. But to meet this threat, we don’t need to send tens of thousands of our sons and daughters abroad, or occupy other nations. Instead, we will need to help countries like Yemen, Libya, and Somalia provide for their own security, and help allies who take the fight to terrorists, as we have in Mali. And, where necessary, through a range of capabilities, we will continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans.
As we do, we must enlist our values in the fight. That is why my Administration has worked tirelessly to forge a durable legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism operations. Throughout, we have kept Congress fully informed of our efforts.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-promises-to-work-with-congress-on-targeting
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)and let the jury decide if you should "executive" power to kill.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)why would you think that trials in absentia comport with due process?
On a side note, Anwar Awlaki had already been tried by a Yemeni court for the murder of a French citizen in absentia....he didn't show up.
Paul E Ester
(952 posts)is ok as long as they are NOT american. If it's ok to target "militants" by drone. Then it's just as ok to go to their house in some town Yemen in middle of the night drag them into the street and put a bullet in their head. Thats not acceptable and neither is doing it from 10,000 feet.
Extra-judical killings, Assassination projects of civilians, "kill lists" are not acceptable.
If the El Salvadorean death squads had had drones, their war against the leftist terrorists would have found sanction. Droning Arch Bishop Romero, spiritual leader of the terrorists would have been but one footnote in their war on terror.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The whole argument presupposes that extra-judical killing of civilians is ok as long as they are NOT american."
...it's not about killing "civilians."
The debate is being confounded by hyperbole, and there are real issues.
From the Center for Constitutional Rights:
Under the Constitution and international law, individuals must be afforded due process and convicted for a capital crime before they may be executed by the state. In extremely narrow circumstances, judicial process is not required if an individual poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical harm to others, and lethal force is a last resort to address the threat. A targeted killing policy in which names are added to kill lists after a bureaucratic process and remain on the lists for months is clearly not limited to addressing imminent threats or using lethal force as a last resort, and goes far beyond what the law permits. By substituting its own bureaucratic process for the due process required by the Constitution and international law, the executive is assuming the role of judge, jury, and executioner.
<...>
The executive process for authorizing these killings also plainly violates the legal requirements for the use of lethal force by the state. Outside of armed conflict, where the Constitution and peace-time international law apply, the United States can only take an individual’s life, no less the life of a U.S. citizen, after trial and conviction. The only exception to the rule is where the individual poses a grave threat of such imminence that judicial process is infeasible and lethal force is the only option that could reasonably address the threat. That individuals are added to kill lists after a bureaucratic process and left on the lists for months at a time flies in the face of the requirement that killing must be a last resort to address an imminent threat that leaves no time for process or deliberation.
http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/kill-lists
The Constitution does grant the President the authority to use lethal force against citizens who take up arms against the United States in armed conflict and in situations where the individual "poses a grave threat of such imminence that judicial process is infeasible and lethal force is the only option."
In 2002, another U.S. citizen was killed in Yemen, though it was originally stated that he was not the target.
Derwish had been closely linked to the growing religious fundamentalism of the Lackawanna Six, a group of Muslim-Americans who had attended lectures in his apartment near Buffalo, New York.[2][3]
That an American citizen had been killed by the CIA without trial drew criticism.[4] American authorities quickly back-pedaled on their stories celebrating the death of Derwish, instead noting they had been unaware he was in the car which they said had been targeted for its other occupants, including Abu Ali al-Harithi, believed to have played some role in the USS Cole bombing.[4]
<...>
On November 3, 2002, Derwish and al-Harithi were part of a convoy of vehicles moving through the Yemeni desert trying to meet someone, unaware that their contact was cooperating with US forces to lure them into a trap. As their driver spoke on satellite phone, trying to figure out why the two parties couldn't see each other if they were both at the rendezvous point, a Predator drone launched a Hellfire missile, killing everybody in the vehicle. CIA officers in Djibouti had received clearance for the attack from director George Tenet.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Derwish
Human Rights Watch issued this statement:
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k3/introduction.html
It reiterates the conditions for action ("al-Qaeda role," "no control over area" and "no reasonable law enforcement alternative," but it also stresses the risk of a slippery slope.
Still, who gets to decide on the conditions?
My point is that this problem isn't going away. President Obama is only going to be in office for another four years. It will have to be resolved now or later, by this President and Congress or the next President and Congress, but it's not going away.
Paul E Ester
(952 posts)cannot create a scenario where the killing of civilians is acceptable, no matter how bad a boogyman the government can come up with. Death squads are death squads.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"the center for constitutional rights cannot create a scenario where the killing of civilians is acceptable, no matter how bad a boogyman the government can come up with. Death squads are death squads.
...is utter bullshit. Targeting a criminal has nothing to do with "death squads."
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Where is that? They are just getting around to considering whether "Due Process" should exist and who should decide if it's not up to the President's "Tuesday Kill List" submitted by Brennan at the time.
"Targeting a Criminal...without Due Process... Where was that?
Where is that? They are just getting around to considering whether "Due Process" should exist and who should decide if it's not up to the President's "Tuesday Kill List" submitted by Brennan at the time. "
...because the constant pretense that the discussion is about whether to arrest someone or kill them is aburd.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2422141
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Your link...about the Court for Targeted Killings. Obama is very fond of Commissions, Study Groups, Panels of Experts and now it's the "Court for Targeted Killings."
----------
A Court for Targeted Killings
<...>
A growing number of lawmakers and experts are beginning to recognize that some form of judicial review is necessary for these killings, usually by missiles fired from unmanned drones. Last week, at the confirmation hearing of John Brennan to be the director of the C.I.A., several senators said they were considering the establishment of a special court, similar to the one that now decides whether to approve wiretapping for intelligence gathering.
Even President Obama, in his State of the Union address, said he wanted counterterrorism to be more transparent and fully consistent with checks and balances.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I would add something but its chilling Orwellian logic is already sublime.
Paul E Ester
(952 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)I think you're protesting too much.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I would add something but its chilling Orwellian logic is already sublime."
...add it. I'm sure it will be more hyperbole.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)parts in your post. And, that is why some find it "Orwellian Logic."
You do good work for whoever you are doing it...but, the "work" is supposed to not be questioned...even though you pick and choose quotes to go with what often seems a "pre-arranged interpretation" that just doesn't always come across as something you have done independent research on to come to a conclusion about on your own.
peace...
"You do good work for whoever you are doing it...but, the 'work' is supposed to not be questioned...even though you pick and choose quotes to go with what often seems a "pre-arranged interpretation" that just doesn't always come across as something you have done independent research on to come to a conclusion about on your own."
...the problem is your overactive imagination.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)to be a good discussion of your post.
I urge folks who haven't read it to go over and read that interchange.
It was more from their own independent research than I find when I read "Talking Points."
"I found both 'Big Tree' and 'Treestar's' posts on your other OP"
Which "other OP"?
I think you're confusing yourself.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)that folks come here to see....
's
KoKo
(84,711 posts)K&R for good reads discussion ...
What is it with "Trees?" 
Anyway enjoyed the dialogue between the two Trees.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)you give to Good Will when you clean out your closet?
I don't know why he does that. He's obviously extremely intelligent and the "talking down" doesn't do him favors.... 
Vattel
(9,289 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)for the record, i reject the whole concept; here or overseas.
