We have previously discussed the President’s “kill list” policy under which Obama claims the right to be able to kill any American based on his sole judgment and discretion. A confidential Justice Department memo now sheds more light on that policy and states a broader basis for such killings than previously suggested by the Administration. It is also not clear why this memo was kept secret by the Administration since it deals only with legal interpretations — not classified operational information.
Last March, Attorney General Eric Holder appeared at the Northwestern University Law School to present the new policy, claiming that the President did not need any conviction or even a charge to kill an American citizen. While he stressed that this was based on a rationale that the citizen posed “an imminent threat of violent attack,” I noted at the time that any such limitation was purely discretionary under the theory of executive power being advanced by the Obama Administration.
It now appears that the Administration lawyers reached the same conclusion. The memo notes that there does not need to be an imminent attack in terms of an unfolding plan or operation: “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.”
In plain language, that means that the President considers the citizens to be a threat in the future. Moreover, the memo allows killings when an attempt to capture the person would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel. That undue risk is left undefined.
The memo, entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force,” is a tour de force of an imperial presidency. It was provided previously to both Democratic and Republican members of Congress on the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees. However, those members did nothing to stop such an extreme assertion of unilateral presidential power or to alert the public that the president was claiming far greater latitude in ordering the killings of citizens.
In an Orwellian twist, the memo insists “A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination.” It is more like a very pointed expression of presidential displeasure.
Here is the memo: 020413_DOJ_White_Paper
Source: NBC
Gene,
What he wrote concerning culture was within the context of his reading of our history and as I ran it through my own mental test course, I concluded his point was valid. The principles of the Constitution have firmly embedded themselves within the culture which is something a budding tyrant ‘senses’. (Think millions of pissed off hill people coming out from behind the trees.)
I’m not suggesting, and I don’t believe mespo is, that the role of Congress should be that of lap dogs but there may be a cultural strain standing against tyranny and if so, it is a point which can be worked into the vigilance quotient.
Wednesday February 6, 2013
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Skygall
A leaked government document details the legal argument supporting the president’s use of drones to kill eventual Al Qaeda suspects.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-6-2013/skygall
DonS
I was on a carrier in ’02 and ’04, helping drop bombs on people we were told were part of 9/11, and/or had weapons of mass destruction.
I hated seeing the jubilation expressed by the maintenance folks gathered round the air crews as they dismounted from aircraft that came back empty, empty of ordinance. It was, to me, at the very best a dirty job that someone had to do. And I was lost on the morality and ethics of it, it was too much to make sense of, so I simply had to trust that our leaders were doing the right thing.
I finished my service, got out, and discovered it was all lies.
It was difficult to let go of the rage, but I succeeded.
I know exactly where Mr. Murray is coming from. And I’ve been able to stop carrying about the masses clueless about the U.S.’s ignoble actions. Those who know better and still defend them, well, I was able to let go of that too.
Blouise,
Yes, there is a kernel of truth in that statement. Not all cultures promote or tolerate tyranny equally, however, human nature is human nature. “It can’t happen here” is a myth of epic proportion.
Rafflaw,
Your characterization of what I said, is three times the length of what I said. I never said that “…he is in favor of our servicemen and and women dying unnecessarily.”
I merely said that he’s cheerleading for the imperial adventures that get them killed unnecessarily. He is. He’s done “attack Iran” crusades, before.
You may honor the dead with monuments, if you wish, but I would prefer them to be still alive. Along with all the native people of those countries we’ve invaded, without cause.
What I didn’t mention, previously, is that Mespo then asks anyone who disagrees, “Whose side are you on?”
Mespo gives us a binary choice of his specification, neither of which is anyone with whom I’d want to associate. Life is not about binary choices.
I don’t care for imperialists, nationalists, fear-mongers, or religious fanatics. Very frequently, they’re the same people. Not always.
Disliking them doesn’t elevate my status. I just find those people troublesome.
This is an interesting exchange:
“The best thing we could do is afford other countries the right to run their governments how they see fit and only worry about them if they actually threaten or harm Americans as the guiding principle of our foreign policy.” (MM, quoted by Mespo)
********************
“We tried that in Bosnia, Somalia, Nazi Germany,Imperial Japan, and a host of tyrannized countries. Eventually they get around to threatening us or their own populations. We can’t afford to wait until one of the new crop of criminals or fools get their very own working nuclear device. ” (mespo)
====================
First off, there is a big difference between Bosnia and Somalia, and Nazi Germany and Japan. And of course a difference between how we (and the UN) responded to Bosnia and to Somalia.
And though I see that mespo makes a good rhetorical argument, as does MM (with perhaps additional emotional force), it all comes down to one’s individual reading of history and current events.
As should be no surprise, I am not swayed by the appeals to patriotism; for me that misused chimera dissolved a long time ago and, additionally I find the cry that “911 changed everything” more of a manipulative slogan than a description of why it should be causally determinative. I also look at the cast of public characters who never seem to tire of waving that red flag, and virtually the rest of the cast who repeat it because it is politically correct, and am not impressed (especially since, we find out, all the significant stuff is secret and admin policy is ultimately based on “trust us”).. Likewise prognostications of failing to keep up with the bad guys — in this uncertain world — don’t ring very true since our military might is unlikely to suffer even a noticeable dip below the danger point in it’s capacity. And as long as militarism continues to hold sway, efforts to defuse it’s virulence seem more cautionary for our democracy than positing bogeymen under every bed.
Some have characterized mespo’s position, above, as superficial and belligerent. Maybe it’s not, but I find myself wanting to distance myself from those who use such rhetoric and are shallow or deluded zealots. I would think mespo could find ways to distinguish his own thoughts and feelings from these jingoists but I understand the limitations of the forum.
Likewise I don’t know what motivates MM’s viewpoint and animus, but those of us who who’s skepticism was nurtured and honed living through Vietnam, and continue to get lambasted by the ‘patriots’ because we dare to question authority, despite the spectacle of growing authoritarianism/militarism becoming ever more apparent (to us, (I wouldn’t claim that reading of circumstances was bias free), get quite tired of being told we are, again, wrong.
Whoever said ‘don’t defend yourself”?. But we have, IMO, made a culture of it to our detriment. That cost is too high, And I reject the safe and easy way of going along with the Washington narrative.
This whole dichotomy isn’t about the danger posed by the “terrorists”, It’s about a juggernaut whose interest lies in scaring us into to believing it is, though.
Bob K.,
Just because Mespo has a different opinion why certain actions are necessary against enemies of the US, does not mean he is in favor of our servicemen and and women dying unnecessarily. Furthermore, The members of our military are not politicians and they sign up to serve the country, not a political party or agenda. It is politicians that sometimes send them to the wrong places at the wrong times. However, their sacrifices should be memorialized and honored without hesitation.
Mespo, to my knowledge was not suggesting that all entanglements and adventures, as you called them, are necessary.
For me, If they are citizens, I agree that they must be given due process, if at all possible. At least get an indictment against them if the authorities are unable to capture him/her before a drone attack is allowed. If the alleged criminal/traitor is in the United States, they should be dealt with through the normal justice system.
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/drone/
For immediate release… Thursday, February 7, 2013 6 pp.
Contact: Peter J. Woolley 973.670.3239 or Krista Jenkins 908.328.8967
PUBLIC SAYS IT’S ILLEGAL TO TARGET AMERICANS ABROAD AS SOME QUESTION CIA DRONE ATTACKS
By a two-to-one margin (48%-24%) American voters say they think it is illegal for the U.S. government to target its own citizens living abroad with drone attacks, according to a recent national survey of registered voters by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind. Just 24 percent say it is legal, agreeing with the position taken by the US Attorney and the Obama administration.
“The public clearly makes an assumption very different from that of the Obama administration or Mr. Brennan: the public thinks targeting American citizens abroad is out of bounds,” said Peter Woolley, professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University and analyst for PublicMind.
Support or opposition to the legality of drone attacks on Americans does not vary by party identification. Republicans are just as likely as Democrats or independents to say it is illegal, or that the U.S. government can do it. And men are just as likely as women (47% and 48%) to think it is illegal, though more men than women say it is legal (30% versus 18%). Non-whites are significantly more likely than whites (57% versus 44%) to think it is illegal to target American citizens abroad.
However, by a wide six-to-one margin (75%-13%) voters approve of the U.S. military using drones to carry out attacks abroad “on people and other targets deemed a threat to the U.S.” Republicans, men and whites approve more strongly than Democrats, women, and non-whites, but approval is robust in all demographic categories.
continues…
Minor correction…
“Yes, many earnest people were sacrificed for absolutely nothing, in Vietnam. They thought that they were doing the right thing.
Cheerleaders for imperial adventures, such as yourself, ensure that many more thousands will die for nothing, and that monuments will be erected for them.” -Bob Kauten
And, as is often the case with “cheerleaders”, they’re comfortably positioned…and will never experience the heat of battle.
“Yes, many earnest people were sacrificed for absolutely nothing, in Vietnam. They thought that they were doing the right thing.
Cheerleaders for imperial adventures, such as yourself, ensure that many more thousands will die for nothing, and that monuments will be erected for them.” -Bob Kauten
And is often the case with “cheerleaders”, they’re comfortably positioned…and will never experience the heat of battle.
mespo,
““I rather think the monuments make my point very well that many thousands of people thought that our foreign policy interests, as defined by our elected leadership, was worth the risk of their lives and those of their brothers.”
Yes, many earnest people were sacrificed for absolutely nothing, in Vietnam. They thought that they were doing the right thing.
Cheerleaders for imperial adventures, such as yourself, ensure that many more thousands will die for nothing, and that monuments will be erected for them.
“I rather think the monuments make my point very well that many thousands of people thought that our foreign policy interests, as defined by our elected leadership, was worth the risk of their lives and those of their brothers. It’s not shame that gets them built. Those monuments are a tangible rebuttal to all those folks …who think they know better and are conveniently still around to express it while standing on their numinous corpses.” -mespo727272
http://youtu.be/MGVHUMhWdpE
Exclusive: U.N.’s Drone Investigator Backs Brennan for Top CIA Job
By Spencer Ackerman
02.07.13
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/un-drone-brennan/all/
Excerpt:
The head of the United Nations inquiry into drone strikes and targeted killings believes the chief architect of those efforts will rein them in at the CIA.
Ben Emmerson, the United Nations special rapporteur for human rights and counterterrorism, tells Danger Room he’s giving his qualified backing to John Brennan, President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser and nominee to become CIA director. The endorsement comes at a critical time for both men: Brennan faces Senate questioning on Thursday afternoon; and Emmerson is negotiating access with the U.S. government to its targeted killing efforts for his recently-announced international inquiry into their legality.
It’s an unlikely endorsement. Emmerson, a British lawyer, has put the U.S. on notice that he won’t hesitate to investigate U.S. “war crimes” if he uncovers evidence of them. While Emmerson’s inquiry won’t focus on individuals responsible for any uncovered abuses, Brennan, as a White House aide, presided over the bureaucratic process for ordering suspected terrorists killed. Yet at the White House, Emmerson says, Brennan “had the job of reining in the more extreme positions advanced by the CIA,” which he thinks augurs well for Brennan’s CIA tenure.
“By putting Brennan in direct control of the CIA’s policy [of targeted killings], the president has placed this mediating legal presence in direct control of the positions that the CIA will adopt and advance, so as to bring the CIA much more closely under direct presidential and democratic control,” Emmerson says. “It’s right to view this as a recognition of the repository of trust that Obama places in Brennan to put him in control of the organization that poses the greatest threat to international legal consensus and recognition of the lawfulness of the drone program.”
“Warts and all” conversations with current and former Obama administration officials convince Emmerson that Brennan tried to steer the drone program from a “technology-driven process” to one that attempted to balance the interests of the law, counterterrorism, and the agencies involved in implementing it. “There are significant elements within the CIA who are unhappy about Brennan’s appointment,” Emmerson says. “These are the hawkish elements inside the CIA who would rather have as a director someone who reflected their agenda, rather than someone who is there to impose the president’s agenda.”
Emmerson says he can’t know if Brennan will actually carry out fewer drone strikes at the CIA. “What I’m saying is, Brennan has been the driving force for the imposition of a single consistent and coherent analysis, both legal and operational, as to the way the administration will pursue this program,” he explains. “I’m not suggesting that I agree with that analysis. That’s not a matter for me, it’s a matter for states, and there’s a very considerable disagreement about that. But what I am saying is that what he will impose is restraint over the wilder ambitions of the agency’s hawks to treat this program in a manner that is ultimately unaccountable and secret.” continues…
Robert Mueller not sure whetheer Amerikan citizens can be legally assassinated…Turley responds…..
… http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/03/fbi-director-have-to-check-to-see-if-obama-has-the-right-to-assassinate-americans-on-u-s-soil.html …
MM:
“I finally made my long-postponed pilgrimage to the Vietnam War Memorial two years ago. I’ll submit that monument and the lost lives it commemorates as the answer to your question. I would also submit the monuments to America’s dead and maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan, too, but no one has designed and constructed them yet.”
**************************
Monuments pay homage to the service of the honoree. They are erected by those who remain to honor the profoundly expressed courage, commitment, and allegiance of those who have fallen. The monuments speak well about those commemorated (who all but assuredly would disagree with you that their sacrifice was made in vain) but moreso about those who erected it. I rather think the monuments make my point very well that many thousands of people thought that our foreign policy interests, as defined by our elected leadership, was worth the risk of their lives and those of their brothers. It’s not shame that gets them built. Those monuments are a tangible rebuttal to all those folks like you who think they know better and are conveniently still around to express it while standing on their numinous corpses.
FoxNews.com published news of Saudi drone airstrip in 2011
Posted by Erik Wemple on February 6, 2013 at 4:05 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/02/06/foxnews-com-published-news-of-saudi-drone-airstrip/
Excerpt:
The New York Times is getting a great deal of attention for going right ahead and revealing the existence of a secret U.S. drone base in Saudi Arabia. “Revealing,” however, may be too strong a word.
Have a look at this shot of a FoxNews.com story dating back to September 2011. The headline reads, “Obama Administration Building New Drone Bases in Horn of Africa, Saudi.” ..continues…
“US media yet again conceals newsworthy government secrets”
The collective self-censorship over a US drone base in Saudi Arabia is but the latest act of government-subservient ‘journalism’
by Glenn Greenwald
Thursday 7 February 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/07/saudi-arabia-drones-media-concealment
Excerpt:
…
The US media, over the last decade (at least), has repeatedly acted to conceal newsworthy information it obtains about the actions of the US government. In each instance, the self-proclaimed adversarial press corps conceals these facts at the behest of the US government, based on patently absurd claims that reporting them will harm US national security. In each instance, what this media concealment actually accomplishes is enabling the dissemination of significant government falsehoods without challenge, and permitting the continuation of government deceit and even illegality.
One of the most notorious examples was in mid-2004 when the New York Times discovered – thanks to a courageous DOJ whistleblower – that the Bush administration was eavesdropping on the electronic communications of Americans without the warrants required by the criminal law. But after George Bush summoned to the Oval Office the paper’s publisher (Arthur Sulzberger) and executive editor (Bill Keller) and directed them to conceal what they had learned, the NYT complied by sitting on the story for a-year-and-a-half: until late December, 2005, long after Bush had been safely re-elected. The “national security” excuse for this concealment was patently ludicrous from the start: everyone knew the US government was trying to eavesdrop on al-Qaida communications and this story merely revealed that they were doing so illegally (without warrants) rather than legally (with warrants). By concealing the story for so long, the New York Times helped the Bush administration illegally spy on Americans.
The Washington Post’s Dana Priest, in a superb act of journalism, reported in 2005 that the CIA was maintaining a network of secret “black sites” where detainees were interrogated and abused beyond the monitoring scrutiny of human rights groups and even Congress. But the Post purposely concealed the identity of the countries serving as the locale of those secret prisons in order to enable the plainly illegal program to continue without bothersome disruptions: “the Washington Post is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior US officials.”
continues…
Bob Kauten:
“Should we continue to kill the Japanese, or are we done nurturing that particular injury?”
*****************************
No, Bob, in case you missed it they surrendered, deposed the Emperor, gave up any military except defensive forces, and became a trading partner with us. It was in all the papers.
Eight FBI agents conduct interrogation in Iceland in relation to ongoing U.S. investigation of WikiLeaks
Thursday February 7th 2013, 10:30 GMT
http://wikileaks.org/Eight-FBI-agents-conduct.html
Recently it has become public that the FBI had secretly sent eight agents to Iceland in 2011 in relation to the ongoing U.S. investigation of WikiLeaks. The Icelandic Minister of Interior, Ögmundur Jónasson, has confirmed this to the Icelandic press and furthermore stated that when he found out on August 25th 2011 that the aim of the visit was to interrogate an Icelandic citizen he ordered the local police to cease all co-operation with the FBI. He indicated that the FBI had left the country the day after.
In a joint statement Monday from the Icelandic Police Chief and the Prosecutor General it is revealed that the FBI agents, in fact, did not leave the country immediately and were conducting interrogation of an Icelandic subject for at least five days, without the presence of Icelandic police officers.
The person in question was a 18 year old individual who had offered his assistance to WikiLeaks as a volunteer. For a period of some months he did manage several minor tasks for the organisation as one of hundreds of volunteers all over the world assisting the organisation. Many of them have visited Julian Assange as did the person in question in the summer of 2011. A Canadian volunteer contacted the young Icelander with the idea of raising funds for WikiLeaks with online sales of T-shirts, coffee mugs and other merchandise. It later emerged that the Icelander deceived the Canadian volunteer into believing that he was WikiLeaks staff in order to have the funds transferred to his personal account instead of the organisations. When confronted, he admitted the wrongdoing. Because of requests from people close to him and his young age he was offered the opportunity to repay the stolen funds, which amounted to about $50,000. When it became clear he would not honour the agreement the matter was reported to the Icelandic Police.
WikiLeaks has learned that the police have finished the investigation and that the matter has been sent to the police prosecutor. It has also been reported that the police are processing charges of embezzlement against the individual pertaining to a number of other organisations within Iceland unrelated to WikiLeaks. It has materialized that the individual has engaged in gross misrepresentations of different types to obtain benefit from a range of parties.
We will not identify him by name in light of information that he has recently received institutional medical treatment.
In light of the relentless ongoing persecution of U.S. authorities against WikiLeaks it is not surprising that the FBI would try to abuse this troubled young man and involve him in some manner in the attempt to prosecute WikiLeaks staff. It is an indication of the great length these entities are willing to go that they will disrespect the sovereignty of other nations in their endeavor. There is strong indication that the FBI used a combination of coercion and payments to pressure the young man to co-operate.
For further background, see:
http://icelandreview.com/icelandrev…
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/ATT_engineer_says_Bush_Administration_sought_1216.html
AT&T engineer says Bush Administration sought to implement domestic spying within two weeks of taking office
by John Byrne
Sunday December 16, 2007
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/ATT_engineer_says_Bush_Administration_sought_1216.html
Excerpt:
Nearly 1,300 words into Sunday’s New York Times article revealing new details of the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping program, the lawyer for an AT&T engineer alleges that “within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans phone usage.
In a New Jersey federal court case, the engineer claims that AT&T sought to create a phone center that would give the NSA access to “all the global phone and e-mail traffic that ran through” a New Jersey network hub.
The former AT&T employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity to the Times said he took part in several discussions with agency officials about the plan.
“The officials, he said, discussed ways to duplicate the Bedminster system in Maryland so the agency could listen in with unfettered access to communications that it believed had intelligence value and store them for later review,” Times reporters Eric Lichtblau, James Risen and Scott Shane wrote. “There was no discussion of limiting the monitoring to international communications, he said.”
At some point, he told the paper, I started feeling something isn’t right.
Not surprising and maybe why Bush, Cheney, et al have never been called to account for their actions. At the end of the day maybe they all are in bed together. I never thought I would think much less say that.