Reply With Quote
I assume others are reading this.
if due process is passe', what's your objection to the policy? what need is there for judicial review if due process is "not practicable" in the context?
I assume others are reading this.
obstinately misstating what I've suggested.
Due process protections need to evolve with what is legally permissible to accomodate the exigencies of the WOT. Hence my suggestion of a "presidential review panel." It might not ground-shattering, but its a uva lot better than clinging to outdated concepts of due process.
the paper is directly quoted. you may disagree with the gloss, but it is a straightforward one. much like the part you've high-lighted. the inconsistency of the white paper in this regard is striking.
Read in context (my quote qualifying your quote because of the order of their appearance in the first paragraph), the gloss is incorrect.
problem is, due process substantively vanishes in the process.
are you familiar with a poster named mogrovejo? you and he seem to share a similar contempt for basic cons utional rights.
you sure know how to sweet talk a gal WH
the argument is moot. we'll not ever find out whose gloss is correct, because the policy will be glossed secretly by the President's appointees.
Well, myself. If they find a US citizen that is clearly acting with terrorists cells in another country, I'm OK with them taking them out in the same manner they do the non citizens.
calling due process quaint is contempt for the Cons ution as written. the proper way to change it is by amending the Cons ution. providing an ins utional check for secret, extrajudicial state murder is a very neat inversion of due process. in fact, it's the very thing due process is supposed to protect us from.
what a surprise.
and btw, the notion that the relatively insignificant threat posed to US lives and national security by terrorism requires us to abandon or redefine elementary rights under the Cons ution is risible on its face.
HUGE slippery slope..
or would be, were it not already happening . . .
To be fair such arrangements already happen (ie: FISA, which allows for 4th amendment overrides based on judicial review).
The 4th and 5th amendment rights are not absolute. In Hamdi (IIRC), the SCOTUS stated that there's two competing interests at play, one the individual 4th and 5th amendment rights, and the other the state's interest in national security. Both interests must be carefully weighed in order to make a decision. The thing is, it's the judiciary's duty to apply such weighing.
Well, say somehow Osama bin Laden was a US citizen. Still against killing him?
I'm all for some FISA-like approval process, but I doubt the kind of targets they have in mind would call for many refusals.
Again, I'll use OBL as an example, because it really happened. At least one of the times a cruise missile strike could have possibly killed him before 9/11, it was called of precisely because of the people with him at the time.
Nowadays, it's still technically war. Stop that technicality through Congress and go from there. Good luck on having Congress take back its balls.
White House Drone Response To Media Harks Back To Bush Years
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2632538.html
NEW YORK -- During Tuesday’s White House briefing, press secretary Jay Carney repeatedly directed reporters asking about the Obama administration’s drone policy to a confidential Justice Department white paper that provides the legal rationale for killing American citizens believed to be associated with al Qaeda.
Reporters have long sought more details about the legal justification for drone strikes aimed at Americans without a trial. The Obama administration, which promised years back to be “the most open and transparent in history,” successfully fought The New York Times' Freedom of Information Act request earlier this month to obtain a classified legal memo reportedly justifying the deadly drone strike Anwar al-Awlaki, an American cleric linked to al Qaeda.
NBC News reporter Michael Isikoff obtained a copy of a 16-page, unclassified white paper sent in June to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees. The scoop has driven the news cycle, taking on added significance given that White House adviser John Brennan, the oft-described drone architect of the Obama administration, will surely face questions on the subject Thursday at his confirmation hearing to become CIA director.
It's unclear why the White House couldn't have provided reporters with the unclassified white paper earlier, given long-running questions about the legality of the administration's drone program and and a media debate that's heated up in recent weeks, rather than only addressing the paper after a news organization publishes it.
However, Isikoff, a veteran Washington reporter, said he isn't surprised by the chain of events. Isikoff told The Huffington Post he encountered the “same scenario” during the George W. Bush administration when it came to controversial national security issues, such as memos outlining concerns about war crimes.
“It’s very reminiscent of the way these things played out during the Bush administration,” Isikoff said. “There was a complete reluctance to acknowledge anything related to enhanced interrogation techniques and warrantless wiretapping and other controversial policies until reporters fleshed out details and got a hold of do ents and made them public.”
Since Isikoff posted the memo on Monday, Carney has directed reporters to the do ent during press briefings.
“I would point you to the now-released -- it was not meant for public release, but it's not classified -- the now-released white paper, which goes into some detail on that very issue,” Carney said. To another reporter, Carney said, “I would point you to the paper that we've been talking about that generated the stories today.”
Carney, again, said he “would point [to] the speeches that have been given by senior administration officials to the do ent that we’ve been discussing here.” Carney told another reporter Tuesday that “since it is out there, you should read it” and that “it’s a click away.”
After a reporter asked whether the White House would officially release the white paper, Carney mentioned that it’s already online, a reference to NBC News’ website, and then referred further questions to the Justice Department. Justice will not publish the do ent online, a department spokeswoman told The Huffington Post.
When not pointing to the white paper, Carney has often referred reporters to earlier public statements from officials.
That's something he's done previously in response to questions generated by a major drones-related scoop. Following The New York Times bombs front-page story in May on the Obama administration’s terrorist “kill list,” Carney referred reporters to Brenann’s speech at the Wilson Center weeks prior.
Even as reporters have new questions following the publication of the white paper, Carney has repeatedly directed questioners back to the same speech by Brennan, along with past public comments from Attorney General Eric Holder.
On Wednesday’s front page, The New York Times reported on the existence of a secret drone base in Saudi Arabia -- a detail several news organizations had originally withheld at the CIA’s request -- along with criticism from former military and intelligence officials that drone strikes could create more anti-American militants.
When asked Wednesday about that potential impact of drone strikes, Carney told a reporter that “in terms of the broader effort, I would refer you to the Pentagon,” before again referencing Brennan’s past public statements.
Or maybe we should just stop fighting this perpetual war and stop taking a on our civil liberties and the Cons ution....
I mean, are we REALLY at the point where Team Blue apologists are calling the right of due process "outdated"?
.
Huffington Post: 10 Questions to Ask John Brennan at His CIA Confirmation Hearing
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/medea-benjamin/10-questions-to-ask-john-_b_2623693.html
John Brennan's confirmation hearing to become head of the CIA will take place at the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, February 7. There is suddenly a flurry of attention around a white paper that lays out the administration's legal justification for killing Americans with drones overseas, and some of the Senators are vowing to ask Brennan "tough questions," since Brennan has been the mastermind of the lethal drone attacks. But why have the Senators, especially those on the Intelligence Committee who are supposed to exercise oversight of the CIA, waited until now to make public statements about their unease with the killing of Americans that took place back in September and October of 2011? For over a year human rights groups and activists have been trying, unsuccessfully, to get an answer as to why our government killed the 16-year-old American boy Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and have had no help from the Senators' offices.
We look forward to hearing the Senators question Brennan about the legal justifications used by the Obama administration to kill three Americans in Yemen, as we are deeply concerned about their deaths and the precedent it sets for the rights of U.S. citizens.
But we are also concerned about the thousands of Pakistanis, Yeminis and Somalis who have been killed by remote control in nations with whom we are not at war. If CODEPINK had a chance to question John Brennan as his hearing on Thursday, here are some questions we would ask:
1. You have claimed that due to the precision of drone strikes, there have been only a handful of civilian casualties. How many civilians deaths have you recorded, and in what countries? What proportion of total casualties do those figures represent? How do you regard the sources such as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that estimates that drone casualties in Pakistan alone range from 2,629-3,461,with as many as 891 reported to be civilians and 176 reported to be children? Have you reviewed the photographic evidence of death and injury presented by residents of the drone strike areas? If so, what is your response?
2. According to a report in the New York Times, Washington "counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants," unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. Please tell us if this is indeed true, and if so, elaborate on the legal precedent for this categorization. In areas where the U.S. is using drones, fighters do not wear uniforms and regularly intermingle with civilians. How does the CIA distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate targets?
3. In a June 2011 report to Congress, the Obama administration explained that drone attacks did not require congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution because drone attacks did not involve "sustained fighting," "active exchanges of fire," an involvement of U.S. casualties, or a "serious threat" of such casualties. Is it your understanding that the initiation of lethal force overseas does not require congressional approval?
4. If the legal basis for the use of lethal drones is the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), can this authorization be extended to any country through presidential authority? Are there any geographic limitations on the use of drone strikes? Does the intelligence community have the authority to carry out lethal drone strikes inside the United States? How do you respond to the charge that the U.S. thinks it can send drones anywhere it wants and kill anyone it wants, all on the basis of secret information?
5. Assassination targets are selected using a "disposition matrix." Please identify the criteria by which a person's name is entered into the matrix. News reports have mentioned that teenagers have been included in this list. Is there an age criteria?
6. In Pakistan and perhaps elsewhere, the CIA has been authorized to conduct "signature strikes," killing people on the basis of su ious activity. What are the criteria for authorizing a signature strike? Do you think the CIA should continue to have the right to conduct such strikes? Do you think the CIA should be involved in drone strikes at all, or should this program be turned over to the military? If you think the CIA should return to its original focus on intelligence gathering, why hasn't this happened? As Director of the CIA, will you discontinue the CIA's use of lethal drones?
7. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which the U.S. has implicitly invoked to justify strikes, requires that "measures taken by Members in the exercise of [their] right to self-defense... be immediately reported to the Security Council." Please elaborate on why the United States uses Article 51 to justify drone strikes but ignores the clause demanding transparency.
8. The majority of prisoners incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay were found to be innocent and were released. These individuals landed in Guantanamo as victims of mistaken iden y or as a result of bounties for their capture. How likely is it that the intelligence that gets a person killed by a drone strike may be as faulty as that which put innocent individuals in Guantanamo?
9. You have stated that there is little evidence drone strikes are causing widespread anti-American sentiment or recruits for extremist groups. Do you stand by this statement now, as we have seen an expansion of al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula, possibly triple the number that existed when the drone strikes began? Do you have concerns about the "blowback" caused by what General McChrystal has called a "visceral hatred" of U.S. drones?
10. If a civilian is harmed by a drone strike in Afghanistan, the family is en led to compensation from U.S. authorities. But this is not the case in other countries where the U.S. government is using lethal drones. Why is this the case? Do you think the U.S. government should help people who are innocent victims of our drone strikes and if so, why haven't you put a program in place to do this?
Stay tuned to www.c-span.org at 2:30 p.m. on Thursday to hear the Senators' questions, Brennan's answers and the response from those of us in the audience who don't have many such occasions to express outrage at our government's policy of remote-controlled killing.
I couldn't tell you what happened with OBL back in that instance you cite, but memos like this one apparently didn't exist back then. My main concern with it is the lack of transparency and oversight. If the executive really feels they're not violating anybody's rights, there's no reason not to seek a declaratory judgment or similar from the SCOTUS (which can also be conducted in secret, if necessary). Especially in such a sensible topic as American lives and rights.
Congress already handed out the AUMF. The executive took that and built a legal house of cards based on it and a couple of court cases. The venue to test the cons utionality of such legalese (both the AUMF itself and this executive legal construction) is the judiciary. That they're not only not involved, but that the executive claims that this legalese is not subject to judiciary review strikes me as incorrect and a violation of separation of powers.
And proper review (pre or post facto) is the bare minimum, IMO. There's other issues at hand here. The language in that memo is vague as , both on what it claims 'imminent' means (which is not the meaning of the actual word), and things such as 'associated force'... what is that? how does a regular American makes sure he's not tagged as such? If somebody incorrectly was labeled as such, where does an American challenge that? And so on...
I think time might be a reason. By the time the President gets the ok from the SCOTUS or other en y, the target might be long gone.
What they aren't telling you about Obama's drone assassinations of Americans
http://www.examiner.com/article/what-they-aren-t-telling-you-about-obama-s-drone-assassinations-of-americans
It's legal to drone strike Americans according to the Obama Administration. This is the recent revelation that is dominating news outlets. But is this new?
NBC News has revealed a leaked Department of Justice do ent explaining the so called legal drone strikes on U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism even without proof. With a "mainstream" news outlet like NBC reporting on such a story, the rest of the lapdog media had no choice but to suddenly show interest.
Even the New York Times last year reported on President Obama's secret kill list, which even included a 17-year-old girl.
The U.S. government has already assassinated multiple U.S. citizens with drone strikes. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old Denver, Colo. native, was assassinated via drone while in Yemen in 2011 a week after his father was assassinated.
The boy's father, American-born Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric and Al Qaeda leader according to the U.S. government, was assassinated without charge or trial based on the assumption that he was a threat. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was bombarded with questions by reporters about how the Obama Administration could legally murder U.S. citizens without proof of a crime to which they could give no straight answer.
Despite the murder or indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge being illegal, some argue that a man as dangerous as Awlaki, who had been tied to 26 terrorism cases according to the U.S. government, had to be taken out before any more damage could be done.
One may wonder where the U.S. got these claims since a Freedom of Information request revealed that Awlaki had been held by the U.S. at least twice and then released. The do ents indicated that he had been held for at least eight months between 2006 and 2007. Even more disturbing is the FBI's admission that Awlaki was detained in 2002 then quickly released.
One may ask why a man wanted dead or alive by the CIA has been captured and released multiple times, but it gets worse. In what has to be some of the most ridiculous and shocking news to ever be released was the admission that Awlaki had dined at the Pentagon with top U.S. military leaders just months after 9/11. Why is a top Al Qaeda leader eating at the nation’s military command center after the 9/11 attacks when the government says he preached to three of the hijackers?
To anyone even remotely paying attention to the world around them, this whole situation seems like a comedy skit or nightmare from the twilight zone. Despite all of this being readily available news, the media now refuses to bring these important points into the conversation. But yet again, it gets much worse.
Awlaki had ties to almost every "failed plot" within the United States. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the "Underwear Bomber," had been coached by Awlaki according to the U.S. government, yet was put on the plane by the U.S. government.
Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy admitted live on C-SPAN that he was forced to get Abdulmutallab on the plane after he originally denied his visa, a bombs that the media refused to touch. Even lawyer Kurt Haskell who was on the flight blew the whistle on what he witnessed.
The connections are too many to list but the most frightening aspect of all this is the public’s lack of ability to connect the dots. Many have, though. Mickey McCarter, writer for Homeland Security Today, was grilled by callers about the revelations over the Underwear Bomber live on C-SPAN.
In light of what’s going on in the Middle East as well, the real question by the media and citizens should be why is the government claiming it needs the ability to murder Americans to keep them safe from groups they are actively supporting? Are they really worried about these groups or are they worried about the American citizens?
Last edited by SA210; 02-06-2013 at 11:31 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions