Reply With Quote
My issue was with what can easily be construed as intentionally vague language. I have no answers.
.
.
.
Very critical news coverage last night by Cenk Uyger on The Young Turks.
Cenk goes pretty hard on this one picking the Administration off point by point on their memo and their comments, etc .
Here are the series of the segments they ran last night.
American citizens were executed abroad in targeted drone strikes, and now, a leaked Justice Department memo outlines how the U.S. government could order drones strikes on them and others for no clear reason. Cenk Uygur breaks down the egregious abuse of power by the Obama administration.
TYT: Govt. Has The Right to Kill American Citizens?
"White House reporters tried in vain to get information from press secretary Jay Carney about a newly released paper that deals with the Obama administration's killing of American citizens.
The paper, which was obtained by NBC News, lays out some of the government's justification for the assassination of Americans with drone strikes. The memo says that the US can order the killing of Americans if they are believed to be senior Al Qaeda members, even if they are not actively plotting attacks."*
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney responded to the "white paper memo" on the Obama administration's killing of American citizens with drone strikes. Well, actually he didn't- but according to him, the president was very, very serious when thinking the strikes over. Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
TYT: Deadly Drone Strikes - Obama is 'Serious'
I figured to include this last one because Brennan is Obama's Drone warrior in crime and will be having his confirmation hearing Thursday.
"John Brennan, President Barack Obama's nominee to head the CIA, had detailed, contemporaneous knowledge of the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" on captured terrorism suspects during an earlier stint as a top spy agency official, according to multiple sources familiar with official records."*
There's evidence that CIA Director nominee John Brennan had extensive knowledge of torture programs. Sure he allegedly "had reservations," but he didn't do anything about it.
Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
TYT: Obama CIA Nom Approves Torture?
My issue was with what can easily be construed as intentionally vague language. I have no answers.
why are we separating American humans from other humans?
news: ”more pakistanis died today in drone attack”
America: ”meh.”
News: ”American citizen that was probably an Al Qaeda leader died today in drone attack in Pakistan”
America: ”OMGWTFBBQ! This is absurd! Outrageous even!
If we put up with this, the slippery slope, frog in hot water will be complete desecration of the holy Cons ution followed by drone attacks in my neighborhood!”
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth. I never suggested using an Article II court. My preference would be for Article III review, but I could also deal with Article I.
As for your other point, it begs the question of what you mean by bona fides: good faith or competency (or both). The cons utional structure of Article III review rests upon the premise of good faith (hence, lifetime appointments). The congressional outcry over executive warpowers also suggests strong scrutiny and hence good faith. And competency can be developed.
Yeah, we shot a bunch of other people when we assassinated bin Laden. Don't feel bad about that at all.
What if he isn't plotting but some allegedly 'informed, high ranking' govt official says he is? tough luck? there's a reason we have a due process clause in the cons ution. We have the right to challenge our accusers.
yes, common, popular understanding of the Cons utional rights is that they apply only to American citizens, are "alieanable" for non-American-citizens. iow, Cons utional rights are not HUMAN rights, but only American citizen rights.
Americans truly believe America as a country and Americans as people are exceptional, superior, chosen/preferred by (some) God (of their own choosing).
iow, Americans are The Chosen People, and all other humans can suck hind .
We are already well down the slippery slope of a unaccountable, unchallenge-able police state. Observe the OWS American citizens who DARED challenge the financial sector, or non-American Assange, who are to be crushed by that state.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-06-2013 at 01:24 PM.
to sum up, then, you're cool with the President having a secret, due process free assassination power, so long as another branch can review it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-list-doj-memoThe definition of an extreme authoritarian is one who is willing blindly to assume that government accusations are true without any evidence presented or opportunity to contest those accusations. This memo - and the entire theory justifying Obama's kill list - centrally relies on this authoritarian conflation of government accusations and valid proof of guilt.
They are not the same and never have been. Political leaders who decree guilt in secret and with no oversight inevitably suc b to error and/or abuse of power. Such unchecked accusatory decrees are inherently untrustworthy (indeed, Yemen experts have vehemently contested the claim that Awlaki himself was a senior al-Qaida leader posing an imminent threat to the US). That's why due process is guaranteed in the Cons ution and why judicial review of government accusations has been a staple of western justice since the Magna Carta: because leaders can't be trusted to decree guilt and punish citizens without evidence and an adversarial process. That is the age-old basic right on which this memo, and the Obama presidency, is waging war.
sameThe most vital fact to note about this memorandum is that it is not purporting to impose requirements on the president's power to assassinate US citizens. When it concludes that the president has the authority to assassinate "a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida" who "poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US" where capture is "infeasible", it is not concluding that assassinations are permissible only in those cir stances.
To the contrary, the memo expressly makes clear that presidential assassinations may be permitted even when none of those cir stances prevail: "This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful." Instead, as the last line of the memo states: "it concludes only that the stated conditions would be sufficient to make lawful a lethal operation" - not that such conditions are necessary to find these assassinations legal. The memo explicitly leaves open the possibility that presidential assassinations of US citizens may be permissible even when the target is not a senior al-Qaida leader posing an imminent threat and/or when capture is feasible.
incorrect
The exercise of review is a check on "due process free assassination power." Your assertion is oxymoronic.
what was the intended meaning here?
Article III review references a judicial appointment within the purview of Article III of the Cons ution; it's a shorthand for saying lifetime appointed justices who are (supposedly) above the political fray and are neutral/impartial judges.
Article I refers to congressionaly appointed review bodies who, while beyond the power of the President's political whims, may be impartial to their congressional masters.
such a review falls well short of cons utionally guaranteed due process.
what's the point of bringing them up in this context?
if some judicial or or legislative authority were to review the secret assassination of Americans, that would be somehow preferable to the President arrogating the power to violate our due process rights all by himself?
That happens already happens.. we have already killed American born terrorists in battle without taking them to court ... what happens in a firefight? Are our GIs supposed to not shoot the American born combatants that are shooting at them.. If I go to a country and hang out with people who want to kill Americans and know that being in their presence makes me a target as well... and I choose to stay? Does that mean you wouldn't want the govt to send in a drone for the fear that you might harm me and my rights?
Yes. Of course if there is no proof that there was any wrong doing then the person who ordered the strike should be charged with murder..
putting US citizens beyond the protection of the law on the President's say so, with or without the concurrence of the legislature or the judiciary, essentially revives outlawry.
if one doesn't object to the depriving of life without due process of law, it's hard to see what assertion of power would be objectionable.
Impartiality/third party observation of criminal-procedure determinations/check on rights violations.
Sure. Why wouldn't it?
once we decided that indefinite detention (i.e., depriving people of liberty without due process) was ok, getting here was a small step. expedience trumps all, I guess.
it's still an unconsitutional deprivation of rights; asking a court of justice or any other cons utional officer to ratify such proceedings is a perversion of justice and the US Cons ution.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-06-2013 at 03:06 PM.
again with the words in the mouth -- I never said have an A3 justice bless the kill order and all is well. The idea was to provide judicial review in an expedited manner.
Even if you're, say, an American journalist?
How do you, the common citizen, identify these people to avoid them? Do they have a sign on their forehead?
What if you have family in one of these countries?
It's a giant slippery slope, IMO.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
