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

[SA210]

Joe Scarborough this morning

[SA210]

Seriously, if this story keeps getting hotter, look forward to a deflection "crisis" all of a sudden to hit the news or we "capture" a top "terrorist", or stop a terrorist plot in New York, or somewhere, etc to take the attention off this story.

[Th'Pusher]

Legally, is the drone program not authorized under the 2001 authorization for use of military force againt terroists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authori...nst_Terrorists

seems congress pretty much gave full authorization to the president the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.

pretty broad language IMO. Congress granted that power and has the power to redact it, no?

[ElNono]

Legally, is the drone program not authorized under the 2001 authorization for use of military force againt terroists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authori...nst_Terrorists

seems congress pretty much gave full authorization to the president the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.

pretty broad language IMO. Congress granted that power and has the power to redact it, no?

Congress has no authority to overrule the Cons ution and, specifically, the rights granted to Americans by the Cons ution, other than through a Cons utional amendment. Laws are found to be uncons utional and unenforceable all the time.

The sticky point here is the violation of American citizens' 4th and 5th amendment rights unilaterally by the executive power.

[Th'Pusher]

Congress has no authority to overrule the Cons ution and, specifically, the rights granted to Americans by the Cons ution, other than through a Cons utional amendment. Laws are found to be uncons utional and unenforceable all the time.

The sticky point here is the violation of American citizens' 4th and 5th amendment rights unilaterally by the executive power.

I understand the argument and agree in principle. I am just wondering if there is a more feasible way to limit executive powers as opposed to going through SCOTUS.

[ElNono]

I understand the argument and agree in principle. I am just wondering if there is a more feasible way to limit executive powers as opposed to going through SCOTUS.

Well, you can always amend the cons ution and abolish the 4th and 5th amendment... that wouldn't involve the judiciary IIRC...

Or you could just claim everything is secret, take a dump on the cons ution and the judiciary and hope it doesn't come back to hurt you in the future.

I just can't agree with option B. Especially since the SCOTUS has been oftentimes receptive of government calls under exceptional times.

[SA210]

Judge Napolitano has been consistent on this issue.

Judge Napolitano on Obama's "Kill List": 'Congress Should Do Something About It'

On today's Studio B, Judge Napolitano broke down the New York Times' release of President Obama's so-called "kill list." He expressed discomfort at Obama's newly revealed list of alleged Al Qaeda suspects, saying, "Look, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would be turning in their graves if they thought that the Cons ution that they brought forth permitted the president to become a killer."

He added, "It doesn't, it's wrong, it's against our values, it's unlawful and it's uncons utional. Congress should do something about it!"

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/05/29/judge-napolitano-on-obamas-kill-list-con...

"Obama Can Kill Americans, Without Evidence, Inside the U.S."

[Winehole23]

Was there an absence of clear proof re Al-Awlaki?

begging the question. was there?

[Winehole23]

show your work, 'ese.

[Winehole23]

I understand the argument and agree in principle. I am just wondering if there is a more feasible way to limit executive powers as opposed to going through SCOTUS.

Madison v Marbury. Supreme Court gets to say what the law means. Or Congress can pass a law making it illegal. But maybe we're way past that now. . .

[Winehole23]

I would agree that unless this becomes some sort of popular political negative (like when the illegal domestic spying came to light), nothing is going to be done.

But I'd still like to register my dislike for power grabs like this one, especially those without oversight. Even more so when they directly affect American citizens and the cons utional rights granted to them.

It's a sad day in America when citizens are cheated of their rights like this. Or should be, IMO.

right on, bro. this sucks.

You can allow for after-the-fact oversight. Some of that already happens with FISA. It won't bring the dead back, but if there's a up, those responsible should face the music...

memo appears to rule this out.

Again, the power granted by the cons ution to analyze the cons utionality of such legal orders is the judiciary. The executive claim that their legal interpretations are not to be subject to the judiciary is, prima facie, an abuse of separation of powers, and the hijacking of a power not granted to them.

agreed 100%

[Winehole23]

But that's how waiver is adjudicated in every context. In court, the judge (3rd party) determines waiver.

But I think you're point is that there is no third party review of waiver here because the President (in the court example, a party) gets to determine the terrorist (the other party) "waived" his cons utional rights. There's no impartiality.

So, what if there was a special tribunal created to review these executive decisions. The tribunal's proceedings would be expedited and totally secret -- but there would be some semblance of judicial review. Problem then?

absolutely yes. you trust the star chamber?

[Winehole23]

do you give bona fides to a secret body, appointed by the executive, with secret, unreviewable proceedings determining life or death for US citizens extrajudicially?

if so, why?

[Winehole23]

I agree with all that in principle, but nothing is going to change as long as the war on terra is in full swing. Governments always do ed up stuff during war, and no one in government has really pushed back against the imperial presidency since Watergate tbh.

are we at war? with whom, please?

[Winehole23]

Be specific if you can. Al Qaeda is essentially defunct, so you'll have to do better than that.

[boutons_deux]

Be specific if you can. Al Qaeda is essentially defunct, so you'll have to do better than that.

defunct? Supposedly it was AQ who was taking over Mali, with weapons from Qaddafi's looted arsenal in Libya, which is apparently sourcing AQ all over the M/E, like in Syria.

Certainly, the GWOT against AQ, no matter how "defunct" you or the MIC says it is, is the justification for the planet-wide assassinations, drone or Special Ops.

[SA210]

If supporting Al Qaeda warrants a drone strike, doesn't that mean our own government should drone strike themselves for aiding Al Qaeda in Syria? Or does it render the white paper moot?

[George Gervin's Afro]

If an American is somewhere in the world plotting to kill other Americans ,and we can't get to him before he does something, then I don't see a problem with this.

I don't want my son to be killed by a drone strike on our front lawn because of a crime he might have committed...

yet if he chose to hang out with known terrorists plotting to kill Americans in a cave somewhere I couldn't blame the govt... if they thought the only way to stop the bad guys was to hit the cave.... I don't see that as unreasonable...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Seriously, as long as this country remains on a quasi war footing, things like this are going to be produced. No executive after Bush will want to be the one who didn't try everything possible to stop another terra attack on the US, and no congress will want to be the one who stood in the executive's way.

kind of the way I feel chump

[leemajors]

If an American is somewhere in the world plotting to kill other Americans ,and we can't get to him before he does something, then I don't see a problem with this.

I don't want my son to be killed by a drone strike on our front lawn because of a crime he might have committed...

yet if he chose to hang out with known terrorists plotting to kill Americans in a cave somewhere I couldn't blame the govt... if they thought the only way to stop the bad guys was to hit the cave.... I don't see that as unreasonable...

you don't need excessively vague wording in that case.

[SA210]

If supporting Al Qaeda warrants a drone strike, doesn't that mean our own government should drone strike themselves for aiding Al Qaeda in Syria?

[George Gervin's Afro]

If supporting Al Qaeda warrants a drone strike, doesn't that mean our own government should drone strike themselves for aiding Al Qaeda in Syria? Or does it render the white paper moot?

SA you seem like a bright guy and consistent with your points of view across the political spectrum.. I respect that.. but high level targets on foreign soil are fair game..

[George Gervin's Afro]

you don't need excessively vague wording in that case.

so how can do ent every situation imaginable to include? I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying rather I find a vaugely worded somewhat acceptable in this case...(holding my nose)...

[SA210]

SA you seem like a bright guy and consistent with your points of view across the political spectrum.. I respect that.. but high level targets on foreign soil are fair game..

But what does the 16 year old American boy have to do with being a high level target, or a suspect of imminent threat? And you feel comfortable with them saying they don't even need clear proof and no oversight whatsoever?

[boutons_deux]

"we can't get to him before he does something, then I don't see a problem with this."

An informant records AMERICAN CITIZEN gang member(s) plotting to kill other AMERICAN CITIZEN gang members or snitches or any AMERICAN CITIZEN, all within the USA. Why don't the FBI, police just kill the plotters?