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
OS,
Once had a contest with a friend looking for a word to rhyme with orange and there were one or two but only if one pronounced them improperly. So we finally decided that the only way to do it was to make up a proper name.
OS,
“Sporange”. It’s an alternative form of “sporangium” and unless you’re a botanist almost impossible to use in context.
Blouise,
Can you find a word that rhymes with “orange?”
Do you know the only word that both pronunciation and meaning change simply by capitalizing it? The sole exception to that is if the lower case version of the word begins a sentence.
OS,
Had to look up the dictation word.
I was able to get Scrabble to accept ‘hirple’ which is only one of two words that rhyme with purple. Curple is the other one but Scrabble won’t take it. (BTW … both have their origin in Scot dial.)
Blouise,
I get a kick out of obscure words that no one has ever heard of. My daughter says when I am driving I am lousy at staying between the lines.
When was the last time you used “hangby” in everyday conversation? Or amanuensis? I like to mess with pompous people, and in my business goodness knows I run into enough of them.
OS,
Yeah, but Scrabble won’t let me play it …
randyjet,
“When Obama or other governmental agencies imprison 350 US citizens, THEN I will be concerned.”
So nice that you are willing to wait for a crime instead of taking preventative action to prevent it. An ounce of protection beats a pound of cure.
“Your knowledge of history is faulty since such things ARE part of US history.”
Nothing I have said is historically inaccurate. If you have proof that it is? Present it.
Thanks, Mike A.
_______________
Mark,
An appeal to probability at best. Just because some situation can have a good outcome doesn’t mean it will have a good outcome and historically for every one George Washington there are at least two Augusto Pinochet. To leave such a thing to the whim and foibles of whomever has their hands on the reins (pardon the pun) seems like an unacceptable risk. Nobility and strength of character are admirable, but often an exception rather than the rule. Often those who crave and hold power have the least grace. I’d rather have a strong Constitution, strong checks and balances through the Separation of Powers, and an equitable rule of law rather than a seemingly endless list of excuses to take away liberty and freedom in the name of fighting a noun all for a false sense of security and at the cost of our diplomatic clout and claim to a superior ethical high ground. Might doesn’t make right, it makes force. Right makes right and our claims to be the land of the free and the land of liberty are turning in to empty husks, promise and potential wasted on the pyre of ego, greed and fear. A pretty shell.
Blouise,
Fractially is actually a real word, and is derived from the mathematical concept of fractals.
From the urban dictionary, which explains it in the context of someone being “fractally wrong.”
Gene,
But fractally is not an acceptable scrabble word … I’ve tried.
randyjet,
Fundamentally different circumstance, extraordinary differences in technology available and the fact that was an actual civil war. Also, even with how things followed, it’s not like Reconstruction was exactly a walk in the park. Would it have been worse or better had Lincoln not been assassinated? Who knows, but as things worked out, the South remained the red-headed stepchild of the Union until WWII. But what Lincoln did was also radically different in both assertion of a ultra vires action and in scope and scale. His suspension of habeas corpus and use of military justice are inexorably intertwined with the fact of an actual civil war and despite his doing this, there is no evidence that it initially had any practical value other than to create Constitutional crisis. It was confined to a particular route of travel and many of his officers refused to enforce it. When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus nationwide in 1862, the result was a civil rights disaster with 350 people arrested and detained indefinitely and many of them for nothing more that bad mouthing Lincoln or being unlucky enough to be on the wrong end of a grudge with local law enforcement. It was widely abused and used to oppress dissent. That is nothing, however, compared to the modern scale at which habeas corpus has been vitiated and compounded by the use of torture and now the kill list policy. Also consider the true level of destruction after the Civil War. The Union was in no position to impose a dictatorship and such an attempt would have simply prolonged the war and/or started a second round.
Despite the adage that history repeats, it doesn’t. Things change. Technology evolves. Circumstances change. Society and its mores evolves. Nothing is static. And what repeats isn’t history. It’s patterns of cause and effect. What we face here is not properly analogous to the post-Civil War period of American history. It’s a slow erosion of civil rights and aggregation and centralization of power into one place – the Office of the President – based upon the idea of “national emergency”. That sounds like a familiar pattern alright. But it isn’t American history.
“But the Fuhrer needs these powers to protect the Fatherland!”
Sure he does.
When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus nationwide in 1862, the result was a civil rights disaster with 350 people arrested and detained indefinitely and many of them for nothing more that bad mouthing Lincoln
When Obama or other governmental agencies imprison 350 US citizens, THEN I will be concerned. Your knowledge of history is faulty since such things ARE part of US history. My grandfathers business and home was burned to the ground by a mob in Boston during WWI because he had a German name. He did not even speak a word of German, and fortunately for me he and my grandmother survived. During that same time, tens of thousands of US citizens were imprisoned for even mild criticism of the war or even slight disparagement of capitalism. In Texas a law enforcement officer could arrest and imprison any person if they were suspected of even speaking German in public. When things get that bad, THEN I will get concerned. NOT before.
While I do see some reason for concern about the powers claimed, it is not so far worth getting upset about.
Gene H:
“However, if history has taught me one lesson it is that where there is potential for abuse of unfettered power someone will eventually rise to the circumstance and yield to temptation and the dark whispering angels of their less than noble nature.”
**********************
I guess my reading of history is different. From Washington’s refusal of the crown through today, we’ve seen opportunity after opportunity for tyranny to rise missed and missed basically because the people we’ve elected eschewed the chance. I think its cultural. I recall some people here thinking that George W. Bush would stage some kind of terror threat to maintain his Presidency and call off elections. Didn’t happen.
I second every comment Gene H. has made on this thread.
mespo,
And all I can say is “yet”.
In this matter, as in similar matters before it, I sincerely hope I am wrong about the danger of the kill list and our drone policy and its ever moving domestic creep. However, if history has taught me one lesson it is that where there is potential for abuse of unfettered power someone will eventually rise to the circumstance and yield to temptation and the dark whispering angels of their less than noble nature.
If that is true Gene H then why are we not a dictatorship after the extreme measures that Lincoln and the GOP instituted during and after the Civil War.
CIA Operates Drone Base in Saudi Arabia
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 5, 2013 at 9:48 PM ET
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/02/05/us/politics/ap-us-cia-drone-base.html?hp
WASHINGTON (AP) — The CIA conducts lethal drone strikes against al-Qaida militants inside Yemen from a remote base in Saudi Arabia, including the strike that killed the U.S.-born al-Qaida operative Anwar al-Awlaki.
The location of the base was first disclosed by The New York Times online Tuesday night.
The Associated Press first reported the construction of the base in June 2011 but withheld the exact location at the request of senior administration officials. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because portions of the military and CIA missions in Yemen are classified.
Any operation by U.S. military or intelligence officials inside Saudi Arabia is politically and religiously sensitive. Al-Qaida and other militant groups have used the Gulf kingdom’s close working relationship with U.S. counterterrorism officials to stir internal dissent against the Saudi regime.
“Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) issued a tersely worded statement on Tuesday in response to reports of a a secret memo the Obama administration used to claim legal authority to kill an American citizen if that person is believed to be a senior member of al-Qaeda or an associated force.
“Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them,” Wyden said. “The Justice Department memo that was made public yesterday touches on a number of important issues, but it leaves many of the most important questions about the President’s lethal authorities unanswered. Questions like ‘how much evidence does the President need to decide that a particular American is part of a terrorist group?’, ‘does the President have to provide individual Americans with the opportunity to surrender?’ and ‘can the President order intelligence agencies or the military to kill an American who is inside the United States?’ need to be asked and answered in a way that is consistent with American laws and American values.”
Wyden said he would pose those questions to John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, at a Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday. ” TPM It is really starting to heat up.
Gene H:
I can only surmise that the public sees no connection between the two.
mespo,
Maybe you missed this poll.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/government-threat_n_2592063.html
“The percentage of Americans who see the government as a threat to their freedoms is at an 18-year high, according to a poll released Thursday by Pew Research, with the change fueled mostly by conservative Republicans.
Fifty-three percent of Americans now say that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms — the first time a majority has agreed with that statement since Pew began polling on the question in 1995.”
randyjet:
Gen. James H. Ledlie’s could give ’em a run for their money. He was drunk at the Battle of the Crater and got his division slaughtered as he slept it off in the rear.