Today in a congressional hearing, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged that the U.S. may, with executive approval, deliberately target and kill U.S. citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorism. I discussed this story in the segment on MSNBC Countdown below.
In the hearing, Blair stated “[w]e take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community. If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.”
The story raises serious legal questions. It is one thing to kill an American in the course of a terrorist act or to prevent an imminent attack. It is quite another thing to kill someone suspected of terrorism without a trial. That would amount to the assassination of a citizen.
Once again, the Obama Administration appears to be following Bush policies. In late 2002, Kamal Derwish (aka Ahmed Hijazi), a U.S. citizen, was killed in an attack by a Hellfire missile fired by a Predator in Yemen. The U.S. knew it was killing a U.S. citizen because it was monitoring his phone at the time. We were targeting Al Qaeda figures. One of the men was Abu Ali al-Harithi, suspected of masterminding the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. After the attack, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions wrote a letter to the United States stating the attack “constitute[s] a clear case of extrajudicial killing.”
Notably, Derwish was a key possible witness for the defense in the controversial Lackawanna case. He was reportedly the individual who recruited the Lackawanna defendants to travel to Afghanistan and knew facts concerning their travels, timing, motivation, and the material support to al Qaeda.
Such use of unilateral authority put the United States on shaky legal ground. The Annex to Hague Convention Number IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, has a provision that reads: “In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden … to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army … .” The provision is admittedly a bit vague when put into specific situations on a battlefield. However, the U.S. Army has interpreted this provision “as prohibiting assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy’s head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy “dead or alive.'” While the military believes it can target individual soldiers, the line between an assassination and legitimate killing has become more blurred with new technology like predators. What is not blurred are the rights of U.S. citizens.
As reaffirmed in cases like Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), American citizens have the same protections regardless of whether they are without or outside of the country. In that case, two American women who murdered their husbands on American military bases abroad were given the same protections under the Fifth Amendment regardless of the fact that they were located and committed the crimes abroad.
If a president can kill U.S. citizens abroad, why not within the United States? What is the limiting principle beyond the practicalities?
Hmmmm…I think we need to closer look at who was flirting with whom.
AY,
I think it’s ok to think about it, so long as none of the cops in the area have ESP!
less than 5% is actually hemp. If it was 50% or greater it is almost smokeable.
Hemp clothing is also available.
SB probably NOT as powerful as it is today
Both Washington and Jefferson grew hemp. Ben Franklin owned a mill that made hemp paper. Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper.
1784 August 20. (James Madison to Jefferson). “The price of hemp however has been reduced as much by the peace as that of Tobacco has been raised, being sold I am told as low as 20/. per Ct. beyond the mountains.”
I have no doubt that many of the founders knew of the effects of smoking hemp. Although, it was probably as powerful as it is today.
I think the legalization of marijuana would save a lot of mariages. People that are stoned just don’t have the motivation to fight with or cheat on their spouses. 🙂
I suppose if you can shave it and smoke it it is.
Are you sure it is illegal to possess hemp? Whole food sells all kinds of crackers made out of hemp.
Take for instance Hemp fabric, rope etc was the mainstay for the Navy. Then somebody invented Nylon and then Hemp became illegal. I understand that Hemp is actually better in saltwater than nylon and drys quicker. It is all natural. Now its illegal to possess hemp.
I think people should be able to grow whatever they want, and consume whatever they want – on their own property, unless it presents a danger to others. That’s the way it used to be. That’s the way it should be again.
Really good case on this is Mugler v Kansas.
The state and federal governments should be able to control commerce (sales) and prevent dangers in which there is a public interest, but I don’t think they should be involved in anything I do on my own property, unless it presents a threat to others or minors.
Canadian Eh,
Does that really mean that alls the person has to do is think about smoking weed and they are guilty?
Possession? Sounds like the way Porn used to be viewed now you can see it free on Tube8. You did not hear that here.
But porn used to be illegal to possess. Then the Sct stated that so long as you viewed it in your house it was not against the law. Now how you got it into your house is another story. I guess that the Post Office at the time must have been complicit.
Swartmore mom,
I have not a problem in the world with that. My ego needs to be flattered every once in a while.
Duh,
There might be some truth to that. However, not everyone was blessed to be born in Texas. Some get here as quick as they can though..
A side note if God were not a Longhorn do you really think that the Sun would be Burnt Orange?
ECookie,
I have no problem with women flirting with me. Just take a number and stand in line. I await to serve all. lol
lottakatz, Thanks for the cnet link.
Here’s a Glenn Greenwald article that might be of interest, titled: “Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal”
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein/index.html
Maybe it comes from too many years of living next to those damn Yankees. 🙂
Y’all must be attracted to Texans.
Why are all the Canadians flirting with AY?
AY,
I uncovered the answer to your original question asked yesterday. Apparently if one is planning to smoke weed & then drive in Ontario one would be charged even if they chose not to inhale. According to my very well educated on the matter source, police can charge a DUI even if they simply suspect use of illegal substances. Also the question of whether or not it is legal to smoke weed at all here is a rather grey area in the law.
Hope that helped!
Missouri Gov. Jeremiah Nixon, a Democrat, is being joined on the Obama’s special advisory panel by the governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno, and Arizona Gov. Janice Brewer, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s replacement when she moved to Washington.
They are among Obama’s nominations for the 10 positions on Obama’s new “Council of Governors” that he will use for advice on “military activities in the United States.”
The original announcement said the new council is to include governors and administration officials to review “such matters as involving the National Guard of the various states; homeland defense, civil support; synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.”
However, there was no definition of the group’s authority. Can the council recommend “military activities” and can the governors, who already are in command of their own state guard units, mandate activities outside of their areas of jurisdiction?
A new announcement from the White House lists Nixon as one of the nominees.
“He is responsible for operating Missouri’s innovative fusion center, the Missouri Information Analysis Center,” the announcement confirmed.
It was in 2009 when the MIAC issued a report that not only linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism and warned law enforcement to watch for vehicles with bumper stickers promoting Paul and Baldwin, it also warned police to watch out for individuals with “radical” ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes.
Ultimately, Chief James Keathley of the Missouri State Patrol said the release of the report caused him to review the procedures through which the report was released.
“My review of the procedures used by the MIAC in the three years since its inception indicates that the mechanism in place for oversight of reports needs improvement,” he said at the time. “Until two weeks ago, the process for release of reports from the MIAC to law enforcement officers around the state required no review by leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol or the Department of Public Safety.”
He said the report warning about those who hold Christian views was “created by a MIAC employee, reviewed by the MIAC director, and sent immediately to law enforcement agencies across Missouri. The militia report was never reviewed by me or by the Director of Public Safety, John Britt, at any point prior to its issuance. Had that report been reviewed by either my office or by leaders of the Department of Public Safety, it would never have been released to law enforcement agencies.”
Keathley said the report simply “does not meet” the needed standard for “intelligence.” So he ordered its distribution to be halted.
Most notable was the report’s focus on the impact of returning war veterans.
“Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists,” it said. “DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities.”
Now Gov. Nixon will advise Obama on those military and National Guard actions inside the U.S.
“I am pleased that these governors of exceptional experience have agreed to join the Council of Governors,” Obama said in the newest White House announcement. “This bipartisan team strengthens the partnership between our state governments and the federal government when it comes to ensuring our national preparedness and homeland defense.”
“I look forward to working with them in the years ahead,” Obama said of the council, which was created Jan. 11 by his executive order.
The nominees are:
Gov. James H. Douglas of Vermont, a Republican who is chairman of the National Governors Association. He established his state’s Homeland Security Advisory Council to review its security policies.
Gov. Chris Gregoire of Washington, a Democrat who is on the National Governors Association executive committee as well as its special committee on Homeland Security.
Gov. Janice Brewer of Arizona, a Republican who took office when Napolitano was named Homeland Security secretary. She served on the governor’s Military Task Force dealing with base closures.
Gov. Luis Fortuna of Puerto Rico, a Republican who is on the National Governors Association Economic Development and Commerce Committee.
Gov. Brad Henry of Oklahoma, a Democrat on the Education, Early Childhood and Workforce committee for the governors association
Gov. Robert McDonnell of Virginia, a Republican elected last year. He is on the governors’ Health and Human Services committee.
Gov. Jeremiah Nixon of Missouri, a Democrat on the governors’ Health and Human Services Committee who operates his state’s fusion center, the Missouri Information Analysis Center.
Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, a Democrat who serves on the governors’ committee on Education, Early Childhood and Workforce as well as its committee on Homeland Security.
Gov. Beverly Eaves Perdue of North Carolina, a Democrat who is a lead governor for the National Guard. She’s on the governors’ Economic Development and Commerce committee as well as the committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety.
Gov. Michael Rounds of South Dakota, a Republican who previously headed the Western Governors Association.
“Fortunately the Framers of our Constitution saw fit to make one person the Commander-in-Chief.”
I wasn’t talking about the President but about the person on the ground making the decision that someone should be shot, or giving the President the information on who should be shot. While of course the President bears ultimate responsibility for the decision given that our past President bush was an ignorant fool and his VP an arrogant fool, their reliance on such information did much harm.