"Someone Just Leaked Obama's Rules for Assassinating American Citizens"

[SA210]

Yup, Ben Swann was all over this way before the msm started telling you half the truth.

Here is his new segment on the issue.

It is a story that has made national headlines in the past 24 hours. But a story Reality Check has been telling you for nearly 2 years. NBC News obtained a copy of the Obama administration's rules for assassinating U.S. citizens. What President Obama told Ben about this kill list in a face to face interview. The details in a Reality Check you won't see anywhere else.

Reality Check: President Obama's rules for assassinating U.S. citizens?




lol Still no answers on the 16 year old American boy who was murdered in an ENTIRELY separate strike than his father. Props to Ben Swann to see beyond the spin

[ChumpDumper]

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...

All good points -- but the Cons ution takes a regular beating during times of war. Just the way it goes. As I hinted at before, I think we're back in the assassination business for the duration -- I'm certainly fine with another branch of government finding its balls again and doing something, anything about it. Not holding my breath, though.

[ElNono]

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.

Do it post-facto. Won't bring the dead back, but if mistakes are made, then somebody else pays the price too. Accountability. At the very least try to find out if the assassinations of Americans is legal at all to begin with.

All good points -- but the Cons ution takes a regular beating during times of war. Just the way it goes. As I hinted at before, I think we're back in the assassination business for the duration -- I'm certainly fine with another branch of government finding its balls again and doing something, anything about it. Not holding my breath, though.

Agreed.

[ChumpDumper]

Do it post-facto. Won't bring the dead back, but if mistakes are made, then somebody else pays the price too. Accountability. At the very least try to find out if the assassinations of Americans is legal at all to begin with.

I'll put in a little excerpt from one of my favorite books on terra:

'Extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

[ElNono]

I'll put in a little excerpt from one of my favorite books on terra:

Thanks. I would say international law is something the US and especially US politicians simply don't particularly care about. That's why the US has always pretty much ignored the ICC. This is American lives now, and we're talking US law, and the US cons ution. It's a different beast. I would agree with you there's not enough public backslash to do anything about it right now, but IMO, it's still wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks. I would say international law is something the US and especially US politicians simply don't particularly care about. That's why the US has always pretty much ignored the ICC. This is American lives now, and we're talking US law, and the US cons ution. It's a different beast. I would agree with you there's not enough public backslash to do anything about it right now, but IMO, it's still wrong.

Again, I agree in principle -- but In don't see the slope slipping out of the Islamic terrorist milieu tbh. And the quote kind of shows what I figure most executive branch types would think anyway: do until someone says you can't.

[SA210]

Neocons support Obama's drones because he's continues Bush's illegal murderous policies

Cenk of The Young Turks with the goods, again

"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) will offer a resolution next week commending President Barack Obama's use of drones and the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki.

"Every member of Congress needs to get on board," Graham said. "It's not fair to the president to let him, leave him out there alone quite frankly. He's getting hit from libertarians and the left."*

After the leak of the secret white paper memos which detailed a supposed legal justification for the Obama administration drone attack people with little to no reason, the president took lots of criticism. Except from his new backers...the neoconservatives. Is this a sign? Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

TYT: Neocons Love Obama's Drones

[ChumpDumper]

Would have been totally cool had we used and armed those drones sooner.

[Winehole23]

Well, say somehow Osama bin Laden was a US citizen. Still against killing him?

It's one thing to do it covertly, another to have an announced policy rationalizing and normalizing extrajudicial force against US citizens. What we are perceived to be, and represent ourselves to be, matters.

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.

There's no FISA-like approval process for the policy that exists. In fact, it's expressly ruled out. Do you have a problem with that?

[Wild Cobra]

Neocons support Obama's drones because...

OK, I guess neocons do. Do you think conservative support these attacks?

[Winehole23]

To be fair such arrangements already happen (ie: FISA, which allows for 4th amendment overrides based on judicial review).

Difference of degree. It's one thing to surveille secretly, another to deprive people of life and liberty secretly. Plus, the judicial check you allude to Obama expressly rules out.

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.

Again, the policy that exists rules this out. You're talking about a counterfactual: these are, according to the theory, powers inhering in the executive, reviewable by no one.

[Winehole23]

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"?

vy65 is no blue team apologist. she's a post-modern apologist for force, against traditional US liberties.

[ChumpDumper]

It's one thing to do it covertly, another to have an announced policy rationalizing and normalizing extrajudicial force against US citizens. What we are perceived to be, and represent ourselves to be, matters.

So you would have been OK with everything had the rationale not leaked?

There's no FISA-like approval process for the policy that exists. In fact, it's expressly ruled out. Do you have a problem with that?

I know there isn't. I'm saying what I would like. Again, I have trouble accepting the slope will be slipped, so I'm not upset enough to do more than post on a message board. Are you?

[Winehole23]

Again, I agree in principle -- but In don't see the slope slipping out of the Islamic terrorist milieu tbh.

can't imagine a corrupt executive? how naive.

[ChumpDumper]

can't imagine a corrupt executive? how naive.

OK, whom do you think Obama is going to kill due to his corruption?

[Winehole23]

So you would have been OK with everything had the rationale not leaked?

not at all. I believe in due process, for US citizens at least, expediency not countervailing.

I know there isn't. I'm saying what I would like. Again, I have trouble accepting the slope will be slipped, so I'm not upset enough to do more than post on a message board. Are you?

I'm content to express my opinion on a bulletin board for the moment.

You can't imagine a corrupt executive. I'd say that's a fault of imagination. It's a government of men and women, not angels.

[Winehole23]

OK, whom do you think Obama is going to kill due to his corruption?

I don't think so. But I sure wouldn't rule out some future president doing it. It's a bad ing idea to give such regal discretion to the President. And even worse for him to arrogate it for himself.

[Winehole23]

not at all. I believe in due process, for US citizens at least, expediency not countervailing.

capture his ass and try him in court. , worked with Abdel Rahman.

[Winehole23]

criminal justice still ing works, even for terrorism. yeah, it's a hassle, but it's worth it.

[ChumpDumper]

not at all. I believe in due process, for US citizens at least, expediency not countervailing.

I'm content to express my opinion on a bulletin board for the moment.

Good to know you feel so strongly.

You can't imagine a corrupt executive. I'd say that's a fault of imagination. It's a government of men and women, not angels.

True, but I'm going by history here. The only one I can see killing a mother er is Jackson and he'd probably just as soon do it himself in broad daylight with plenty of witnesses.

I don't think so. But I sure wouldn't rule out some future president doing it.

It's not impossible, but like you I'm not so concerned about the possibility to do anything about it.

[Winehole23]

]It's not impossible, but like you I'm not so concerned about the possibility to do anything about it.

expressing one's opinion isn't nothing. close, but it's not nothing.

[Winehole23]

Good to know you feel so strongly.

God, you're so fake. What am I supposed to do?

l

[ChumpDumper]

expressing one's opinion isn't nothing. close, but it's not nothing.

Very close.

God, you're so fake. What am I supposed to do?

Fake about what? I think I'm being quite real here.

[Winehole23]

True, but I'm going by history here. The only one I can see killing a mother er is Jackson and he'd probably just as soon do it himself in broad daylight with plenty of witnesses.

power has broader ambitions, possibly, than you can imagine.

then again, you can't really imagine that, can you?

[ChumpDumper]

power has broader ambitions, possibly, than you can imagine.

then again, you can't really imagine that, can you?

I just did.

Still seems stunningly unlikely.