home

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 08:27:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

At the Washington Post: A long report on the Obama Administration's "global drone killing apparatus."

In the space of three years, the administration has built an extensive apparatus for using drones to carry out targeted killings of suspected terrorists and stealth surveillance of other adversaries. The apparatus involves dozens of secret facilities, including two operational hubs on the East Coast, virtual Air Force cockpits in the Southwest and clandestine bases in at least six countries on two continents.

....The rapid expansion of the drone program has blurred long-standing boundaries between the CIA and the military. Lethal operations are increasingly assembled a la carte, piecing together personnel and equipment in ways that allow the White House to toggle between separate legal authorities that govern the use of lethal force.

It's also a billion dollar industry that has "created blind spots in congressional oversight."

< TSA Increases Suspicionless Spot Checks at Train Stations | Tuesday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    • Sections

      • Site Credits

        • TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
        • TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
        • Powered by Scoop

      • Legal

        • All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
        • Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
        • TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
      • "The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
        © 1965 Bob Dylan

      The best thing is these drones (5.00 / 0) (#2)
      by BobTinKY on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:10:28 AM EST
      only kill terrorists! And they have an uncanny ability to hone in on AQ's #2 guy, again & again!

      Obama 2012!

      This is completely out of control, (5.00 / 0) (#3)
      by Anne on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:12:02 AM EST
      and that's not the worst part.  The worst part is that I don't see much, if any, indication that there's anyone with any oversight or legislative power who's particularly interested in doing something about it.

      I'm not so sure it's as much a case of there being "blind spots in congressional oversight" as it is a case of eyes-closed, hands-over-mouths, lips-firmly-closed because these are the actions of a Democratic administration, and Dems must be loyal to their president.  No matter what.

      America's beacon of democracy and freedom is sputtering.

      This is because (5.00 / 0) (#4)
      by Edger on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:42:09 AM EST
      the radio waves used to fly these drones interfere with brainwaves reducing the ability to think all over America.

      What?

      To paraphrase from Star Trek TNG (5.00 / 1) (#5)
      by eric on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:07:50 AM EST
      One who kills without showing his face has no honor.

      Having a nameless, faceless foe (5.00 / 1) (#9)
      by sj on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:22:33 AM EST
      is so insidious.  It promotes callousness and a sense of "other" rather than the understanding that we are all human beings.  It not only allows but promotes the increased paranoia and mob mentality.  

      You know you've heard it: "oh no! the terrorists are taaaarrrgeting us!"  When more US residents have died in accidents and of illness than of a terrorist act every single year.  Including 2001.  Can you imagine our society if all the money that has been invested in snooping and secrecy in the name of "security" had instead been invested in health and safety?

      Parent

      sj (none / 0) (#13)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:33:49 AM EST
      Blame technology.  I get what you are saying, but what is your alternative?  To send Military Tracy and her people into harms' way because it is more honorable somehow to stare a person in the face when you kill them.

      I am concerned with keeping us safe in a way that minimizes US casualties for a minimal cost with minimal intrusion or injury to foreign countries and their citizens.  

      Your "look 'em in the eye" strategy does not satisfy those goals.  It sounds good but is completely unrealistic.  Particularly when the terrorist would happily use drones and kill us anonymously if they could.  It's not like if we follow your code of honor, the bad guys will too.  They will simply use it to kill more of us.

      Parent

      Blame technology? (5.00 / 0) (#21)
      by sj on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:53:14 AM EST
      Technology simply is.  It's a tool.  And we can be a tool when we use it or we can be a human being.  

      You are so annoying.  I never said I believed in a

      "look 'em in the eye" strategy
      I said that when we allow human beings to be faceless and nameless it allows increased paranoia and mob mentality.  

      If you're not going to bother understanding what I'm saying I don't know why you bother responding.

      Parent

      sj (none / 0) (#25)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:16:26 PM EST
      Dude it is the holidays.  Have a drink or something.  You're too high strung.

      My only point is that once someone in the 1800s got the idea to lob a large shell long distances, you don't have to see someone or know anything about them to kill them and we aren't going back.

      The majority of people killed in any wars from here on out will never see the people who killed them.  You can't put that genie back in the bottle.  That's just how it is.

      Parent

      ABM, (5.00 / 1) (#35)
      by lentinel on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:37:25 PM EST
      Why don't you spend more time drinking with those people who you claim think that you are making sense?

      Parent
      dude (1.00 / 0) (#27)
      by sj on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:22:51 PM EST
      stop drinking and learn to read.  You're too out ouf it.

      Parent
      ABG had a substantive point (1.00 / 1) (#55)
      by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 03:12:02 PM EST
      worth making--that use of drones can help to avoid invasions, i.e, boots on the ground.

      Care to comment on that point?

      Parent

      This is a substantive point? (1.00 / 0) (#61)
      by sj on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 09:51:17 AM EST
      sj (none / 0) (#25)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:16:26 PM EST

      Dude it is the holidays.  Have a drink or something.  You're too high strung.

      hahahaha

      Moreover, when he actually responds my point in his response to me, I will consider his substantive.  Using my comment to riff?  Not so much.

      Parent

      Correction (1.00 / 0) (#62)
      by sj on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 10:01:17 AM EST
      Should be
      Moreover, when he actually responds my point in his response to me instead of a twisted, inaccurate "interpretation", I will consider his substantive.  


      Parent
      Oh, it's just so haaaard to do things (5.00 / 3) (#24)
      by Anne on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:15:26 PM EST
      in accordance with the rule of law, isn't it?  I'm sure if Obama had known that, he'd never have run on that whole rule-of-law thing.

      Jeezus.

      This is what life is like in an ends-justify-the-means form of governance; we allow the government in power to do what it wants, when it wants, how it wants, as secretly as it wants, as long as it assures us it is killing "terrorists," even though all we have is their assurance, and little else.   Oh, and all those pesky reports elsewhere in the world about the deaths of innocents - but, hey, when you're trying to rid the world of evil, what's a little collateral damage, right?

      We're now getting reports of domestic drone use - how soon before we find a whole lot of people being classified as domestic terrorists in order to justify targeted killings right here in the good ol' US of A?  

      And, considering the lack of comprehensive oversight, the total lack of accountability, the sense of entitlement to whatever power is needed, the lack of attention to and compliance with a host of constitutional protections, what would stop them, at this stage?  How have the elected members of Congress and the president shown their interest in preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution?

      I find it incomprehensible that Democrats who used to understand that wrong was not made right by the party affiliation of the person or official making the decision, passing the legislation, signing the executive orders or implementing the policy, have been completely co-opted into doing just that.

      Obama has managed, in three years, to enshrine a militaristic, hawkish, anything-goes-as-long-as-we-can-attach-"terrorist"-to-it mindset that Republicans can find no fault with, making status quo out of things Democrats used to fight tooth-and-nail against.

      The level of secrecy, and the response to breaches of that secrecy, have ensured that these issues will not be debated anywhere - not in the Congress, not in the media and not out among the public - and will entrench a level of power that is almost too dangerous to contemplate.


      Parent

      You address the downside of drones (none / 0) (#54)
      by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 03:10:06 PM EST
      There is an upside.  If drones can help us avoid, as ABG points out, full scale invasions, then they are performing a useful role.

      As with any technological advance, there is potential for abuse.

      Parent

      My husband has said that it disturbs (none / 0) (#50)
      by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:39:36 PM EST
      him that anyone would kill others without placing themselves on the battlefield.  It humanizes things.  Everyone involved must constantly address the death and continue to ask themselves if they can afford to continue on this path.  It is what ends wars usually, the cost.

      And I think when people don't show up in person to address you, and they kill your family...there is a very good chance that a terrorist has just been created.  An empire killed your family without remorse, now you must kill the empire and anybody who is part of that empire is just as responsible as the next guy.

      On the other hand do we want boots on the ground in Yeman and Sudan?  No, not if we can help it and we can help it.  Like anything though, people get sloppy when they become over confident, they kill innocents and say Oooops.  This administration works very hard to avoid anything of that nature but something just happened between us and Pakistan and when you read the reports you still can't tell exactly what but it was obviously a GIANT PHUCKING OOOPS of sorts.  An AC-130 going two miles into Pakistan to turn around is unheard of without preapproval from Pakistan.

      Parent

      That rule hasn't been valid (none / 0) (#6)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:26:02 AM EST
      since the century before last.

      I just can't get very worked up about this.  Here is my logic, which I am sure won't get a lot of support, but it is what it is:

      1. Terrorists want to attack us and are plotting actively to do so.

      2. We have to find a way to stop 1.

      3. The terrorists home countries cannot stop 1 and in some cases want to encourage 1

      4. Our options to stop 1 are:

      • fully military engagement (bad idea, see Afghanistan, Iraq)

      • relying on the home country to stop the terrorists (bad idea, see 3)

      • using non-violent intelligence strategies (somewhat effective, but dependent on cooperation of the home countries. Not a great idea. See 3 above)

      • Drone attacks (uncomfortable, deaths of innocent people is a terrible, horrible side effect, but American lives are not threatened)

      • Doing nothing

      I think the best option in 4 is the drone attacks.  If there are other options that prevent 1 that are  superior, I am open to them.  I just don't think that there are.

      Parent
      Way to totally miss the point, ABG, (5.00 / 1) (#7)
      by Anne on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:02:02 AM EST
      something you might have, just possibly, maybe have grasped if you had read the WaPo article, or any of the numerous other blog posts and articles that have come out in response to the WaPo article.

      Here's a hint: the point isn't whether we should or shouldn't be attacking by drones - although that is a discussion that should be had - it's that the program is more or less a unilateral operation conducted on the president's sole say-so, with almost no oversight by any other branch of the government.

      From the article itself:

      Senior Democrats barely blink at the idea that a president from their party has assembled such a highly efficient machine for the targeted killing of suspected terrorists. It is a measure of the extent to which the drone campaign has become an awkward open secret in Washington that even those inclined to express misgivings can only allude to a program that, officially, they are not allowed to discuss.

      Glenn sums up the problems:

      In sum: the President can kill whomever he wants anywhere in the world (including U.S. citizens) without a shred of check or oversight, and has massively escalated these killings since taking office (at the time of Obama's inauguration, the U.S. used drone attacks in only one country (Pakistan); under Obama, these attacks have occurred in at least six Muslim countries). Because it's a Democrat (rather than big, bad George W. Bush) doing this, virtually no members of that Party utter a peep of objection (a few are willing to express only the most tepid, abstract "concerns" about the possibility of future abuse). And even though these systematic, covert killings are widely known and discussed in newspapers all over the world -- particularly in the places where they continue to extinguish the lives of innocent people by the dozens, including children -- Obama designates even the existence of the program a secret, which means our democratic representatives and all of official Washington are barred by the force of law from commenting on it or even acknowledging that a CIA drone program exists (a prohibition enforced by an administration that has prosecuted leaks it dislikes more harshly than any other prior administration).

      The WaPo:

      Another reason for the lack of extensive debate is secrecy. The White House has refused to divulge details about the structure of the drone program or, with rare exceptions, who has been killed. White House and CIA officials declined to speak for attribution for this article.

      Inside the White House, according to officials who would discuss the drone program only on the condition of anonymity, the drone is seen as a critical tool whose evolution was accelerating even before Obama was elected.

      Now, maybe you're comfortable with a program of drone-killings that is spreading, has no oversight, and is illegal even to be discussed in the Congress, but there are a lot of us who aren't.

      Parent

      Adding some bold . . . (5.00 / 1) (#8)
      by nycstray on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:08:36 AM EST
      Senior Democrats barely blink at the idea that a president from their party has assembled such a highly efficient machine for the targeted killing of suspected terrorists.


      Parent
      What is the mechanism (none / 0) (#12)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:30:07 AM EST
      pursuant to which we prove a terrorist residing in a foreign country plotting to attack is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

      One suggestion would be the creation of a congressional committee with required security clearance to oversee all those who appear on the hit list.  I imagine that is one way to do it and I wouldn't have an issue there.

      I think expecting a court or other public body to weigh evidence in front of a jury or something is a non-starter, so we have to have some lower standard of process and proof.

      I disagree with Obama for not setting forth proposals for addressing the issue, but I don't disagree with killing terrorists using drones generally.

      Parent

      The mechanism by which you prove (5.00 / 1) (#22)
      by Edger on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:53:40 AM EST
      that anyone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of anything is a well defined and time tested constitutional mechanism.

      It's called a fair trial in a court of law.

      Killing people without sanction by a court of law is called murder.

      The important point is that the Constitution doesn't apply to Americans, it doesn't apply to citizens, it doesn't even apply to "people." It applies to the federal government. The body of the Constitution tells the federal government what it is allowed to do, and in some places it explains how to do it (election procedures and such). The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it is not allowed to do . . .
         1. Make no law abridging freedom of speech, press, religion, or assembly,
         2. Do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
         3. Don't quarter soldiers in peacetime.
         4. Don't conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.
         5. Don't commit double jeopardy or force people to testify against themselves.
         6. Don't deny an accused a speedy trial.
         7. Don't deny an accused a trial by jury.
         8. Do not impose excessive bail.
         9. Just because certain rights of the people aren't mentioned in this Constitution doesn't mean you're allowed to usurp them.
        10. Don't exercise any power not authorized in this Constitution.

      Another term for killing people without sanction by a court of law is "terrorism".

      Reasonable thinking people think Obama and Bush should be given fair trials in courts of law, not murdered with drones on the whim of someone acting outside the law.

      Other people do NOT think Obama and Bush should be given fair trials, for whatever faulty "reasoning" they use.

      Those who do not think Obama and Bush should be given fair trials should be charged with supporting terrorism, and given fair trials in courts of law, not murdered with drones.

      Parent

      Edger (none / 0) (#28)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:51:24 PM EST
      1. Obviously you have a point with respect to US citizens.  I personally disagreed with Obama's targeting of US citizens overseas.  

      Let me say that again:

      I personally disagreed with Obama's targeting of US citizens overseas.

      I think that there are two different categories with very different considerations. I am focused on the non-citizen piece because that is the norm.   We are in agreement with respect to US citizens I think.

      2. I think it is relevant that we are really talking about targeted drone attacks in 3 countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.

      In Afghanistan, there is an actual war occurring and the President's authority there is tantamount. There should be no issue anyone has with the bombing there.

      In Yemen and Pakistan, the bombing is done in cooperation with the host government.  That is a fairly important fact in evaluating our actions and one which GG and other critics rarely if ever acknowledge.  We are using drones because the local governments acknowledge the issue, cannot solve the issue and have agreed to our actions.  In fact, we were launching drone attacks from a base inside Pakistan up until this summer.

      Parent

      To reiterate (none / 0) (#29)
      by Edger on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:07:03 PM EST
      The Bill of Rights - the Constitution - doesn't apply to Americans, it doesn't apply to citizens, it doesn't even apply to "people.". It applies to the federal government.  The body of the Constitution tells the federal government what it is allowed to do, and in some places it explains how to do it (election procedures and such).

      The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it is not allowed to do... to anyone.... anywhere... anytime... in any country... for any reason whatsoever.

      There are no exceptions to this in the Constitution.

      Again - those who do not think Obama and Bush should be given fair trials should be charged with supporting terrorism, and given fair trials in courts of law, not murdered with drones.

      Parent

      I think (2.00 / 1) (#30)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:10:00 PM EST
      that the federal government is allowed to do what it is doing.  

      Unlike conservatives and you, apparently, I believe in a living constitution that provides for a number of powers not expressly spelled out in the document.

      Parent

      Well you are simply wrong (none / 0) (#31)
      by Edger on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:22:48 PM EST
      The Bill of Rights is not, as is commonly misinterpreted, a list of rights that US citizens have.

      It is a list of things the government is NOT allowed to do to anyone - US citizen or not - as I've just explained to you twice.

      You are, unfortunately, advocating murder, terrorism, and treason, and you won't find agreement here for those things.

      Parent

      OK (2.00 / 0) (#39)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:49:01 PM EST
      Because if you say it is wrong, you are the definitive answer on any subject and that settles it? Please.

      I am pretty comfortable making the argument that, although imperfect, our use of drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen are not murder, terrorism or treason to most crowds, and having you lose that argument.

      But the easiest defeat of many, but not all, of your assertions is that they all depend upon (1) a lack of war authority (which leaves Afghanistan out) or (2) a lack of authorization by the home country (which leaves Yemen and Pakistan out).  

      (2) above takes it out of the UN governance regarding war between states, for example.  We have to look at the issue domestically (and its far more complex than just looking at the bill of rights on its face . . . that's Clarence Thomas type talk) but from the start, we need to all begin from the same point: we are not talking about actions between two states.  

      Parent

      When all else fails (none / 0) (#40)
      by Edger on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:00:42 PM EST
      there is always denial. Aside from the fact that we're talking about US law.

      Look, I spent 8 years arguing against the same radical right wing bullsh*t you're posting here lately with the most extreme terrorism supporting wingnuts that kept showing up here.

      I don't have time to waste all over again on another terrorism and murder advocate.

      How's your conversion rate today?

      Parent

      Edger (none / 0) (#41)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:27:49 PM EST
      I don't know or care who you argued with before.  I have no idea whether they were righties or lefties, stupid or smart.  All I know is that I am engaging you in the issue.

      If we are talking about non-US citizens, US law, the laws of the country in question and international law generally are involved, and how these attacks are viewed under international and foreign law plays into how the attacks are viewed under domestic law.

      Let me give you what the law now in effect in our country says:

      "[t]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

      I hate the breadth of that law, but that is the law and it gives the president to kill anyone who is associated with Al Qaeda.  Full stop.

      Now we can debate the constitutionality of the AUMF and we can debate whether it should be repealed, but this business about what the law on the books says is silly.  The proper attack is to call for the repeal of the AUMF or to call for it to be struck as unconstitutional. Your real issue is that the AUMF is broad enough to drive a truck through.  You can fit any terrorist associated with AQ into it and in fact, despite calls for a court or oversight or whatever, the law itself gives the POTUS the ability to make the determination himself.

      The silliness of some of these comments, IMHO, comes from the fact that people are throwing out the Bill of Rights and the need for courts and all of this without even addressing the fact that congress abdicated the power a decade ago and gave the President express ability to act without oversight.

      So I don't care if it was right wingers or ACLU types making my arguments, I just know that you have completely ignored the legal reasoning behind the drone attacks.

      I would further add that this is even more directly impacted when it comes to the US citizen killed. If this is in violation of his conlaw rights and it went to court, the defense by the president would be the AUMF, and the President would most likely win I think.

      We can debate this and there are good arguments on each side.  But the idea that you are going to claim to have some superior argument without even referencing or trying to address the legislation that specifically gives a POTUS these powers is silly.

      Parent

      There is so much that is wrong with (5.00 / 1) (#42)
      by Anne on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:04:11 PM EST
      your comment, ABG, that I almost wouldn't know where to begin.

      And, you know, it's really a colossal waste of time to do it, because no matter what I wrote, you would take it down some road no one else was on, and attempt to pretzel your way to justifying everything Obama does.

      Your comments once again reveal your shocking lack of knowledge and understanding, and a situational ethic that is downright frightening.

      What a good little enabler you are!

      Parent

      Anne, you're right, but (5.00 / 1) (#44)
      by Zorba on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:17:04 PM EST
      you're also whistling into the wind, my sister.  ABG is not going to change his mind, no matter what any of us say or do.  I long ago gave up trying to engage him.  Yes, he's an enabler, and an Obamabot.  Bless him, it's certainly his right to think so and do so.  I just can't bother to respond to him because it's not worth my time or effort.  Be well, and Namaste.

      Parent
      Thanks, Zorba - (5.00 / 2) (#49)
      by Anne on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:32:44 PM EST
      it isn't so much that I'm trying to get ABG to change his mind, but that I'd like him to stick to the subject, address the issues raised, instead of doing the rhetorical equivalent of "oh, crap - I can't deal with this, so I'll bring up something way out here that no one else is discussing and make that the theme of the discussion, until I get caught there, too, at which point, I will have to pivot to a new point."

      The WaPo article raised the issues of lack of oversight and accountability, the extreme secrecy and after-the-fact, severely circumscribed reporting to the intelligence committees, and the blurring of the lines between military and CIA - it was not a treatise on the AUMF, or what Bush would have done, or what Hillary would have done.

      And it wasn't about what "everyone" thinks or "agrees."

      But once again, ABG manages to shift everything back to where he is most comfortable: making sure that nothing icky ever sticks to his precious Obama.  And I think the fumes from the Teflon he rhetorically sprays on Obama are beginning to take a noticeable and debilitating toll.

      Bleah.

      Parent

      Anne (none / 0) (#52)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:46:29 PM EST
      I am speaking directly to the issues raised.

      I am just disagreeing with some points raised.

      Parent

      Zorba (1.00 / 2) (#46)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:19:09 PM EST
      Why on earth do you think the goal is changing minds.  I don't comment here to change you or anyone else's mind so why should the standard of engaging me be whether you will change my mind.

      I am here to discuss and think about issues.  No one is going to change Anne's mind (she'll be against Obama on every issue) and I am not trying.

      I suspect that she's not trying with me either.

      Parent

      The funny thing for me (1.00 / 1) (#47)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:20:04 PM EST
      is the idea that this forum would be a better place if everyone believed the same thing.

      Parent
      Obamabot (none / 0) (#59)
      by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 03:31:32 PM EST
      Gee, nice slur....

      Parent
      Anne (none / 0) (#43)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:12:56 PM EST
      My lack of knowledge and understanding is shared by the law professors whose job it is to understand this sort of thing.

      They are having the sort of debate that I wish you were capable of having:

      Link

      As I mentioned elsewhere in these comments, no analysis of the president's current actions can occur without examining the following:

      • AUMF
      • Consent of the countries in which attacks occur
      • Whether the targets identity as Al Qaeda or are connected
      • Whether an imminent/self defense standard applies

      Just one of the points raised in that discussion is worth a discussion in and of itself:

      "Assume that during World War II, a U.S. solider decided to abandon his unit and join the German Army. Certainly, under the law of armed conflict and the inherent right to self defense, that solider could now be targeted and killed by U.S. forces without any resort to judicial review. If the law of armed conflict and the inherent right to self defense similarly applies in the Al-Aulaqi context, then the outcome should be the same."

      Parent

      I would also note (2.00 / 0) (#45)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:17:30 PM EST
      that my thinking on this justifies a number of actions taken by Bush and similar actions taken by Hillary if she were president.  

      And I hate Bush so this is no easy thing.  I believe that in a world of bad options, these attacks are probably least bad and likely legal and constitutional.

      Regardless of who is president.

      Parent

      There are many unconstitutional laws (5.00 / 0) (#48)
      by Edger on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:29:46 PM EST
      You just presented the weakest argument there is for your support of murder and terrorism, abg.

      bin Laden and Bush would have been proud of you. Obama probably would be too, although he would smile and deny it.

      ...

      "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."
      -- Martin Luther King

      Parent

      OK (1.00 / 1) (#51)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:45:50 PM EST
      Now I am no different from Osama because I think the drone killings may be legal, but think there are good arguments on each side.

      On that note, I rest my case.

      Parent

      sj, I thought you wer against (none / 0) (#58)
      by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 03:27:23 PM EST
      ratings like that....

      Parent
      Partially true (none / 0) (#53)
      by jbindc on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:14:12 AM EST
      You are correct in that the Constitution is a limit on the power of the government,as opposed to a limit of the power of the people.  

      This is incorrect, however:

      The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it is not allowed to do... to anyone.... anywhere... anytime... in any country... for any reason whatsoever.

      There are no exceptions to this in the Constitution.

      Not entirely true. The Constitution has exceptions carved out all over it as to certain classes of people. Since its writing, case law and precedence has carved out more classes of people that the federal government can "discriminate" against for certain things.

      The Bill of Rights are only the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and there are certain limitations the government certainly can impose on certain classes of people.  For example, an individual cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theater (if not true), felons or those deemed mentally unstable can have their Second Amendment rights curtailed. A criminal defendant can lose the right to a "speedy trial" if by his own (or his legal team's) actions, the trial process is delayed,etc.)  Even the Fifth Amendment has a caveat in the first clause:  "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger..."

      For example:

      Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment says that all persons born or naturalized are citizens of the United States.  It does not say the federal government cannot put any restrictions on citizenship and it must apply to "all people".

      Sec. 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (amended by the Twenty-Sixth Amendment) says that you must be a citizen of a certain age to participate in voting. It does not apply to "all people". (See also Sec. 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment which states, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--"; the Nineteenth Amendment which states, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."; and the Twnety-Fourth Amendment, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.")

      And of course, the Constitution limits to a certain class of people those who can hold the offices of Representatives, Senators, Vice President and President.

      There are tons more limitations as to what applies to who with regards to the Constitution, as ruled on by the courts, and I don't have time for a research paper, but you get the idea.

      Parent

      Overstated (none / 0) (#56)
      by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 03:22:18 PM EST
      but in large parts true.  Citizenship is irrelevant.

      But to have a fair trial before anyone is killed is not required.  Wartime decisions never required that.  

      The issue is how to define war...

      Parent

      Obama is a war criminal? (none / 0) (#60)
      by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 03:41:05 PM EST
      You are pretty close to saying that.  But you fall back on a version of "some say:"

      Again - those who do not think Obama and Bush should be given fair trials

      So, I put it to you directly, do you think Obama is a war criminal?  Do you think Obama should be tried as a terrorist?

      If you do not believe that, please clarify.

      Parent

      So it would be acceptable (none / 0) (#14)
      by eric on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:34:58 AM EST
      for Congress to sign off on a "hit list".  That is almost worse, in my view as it demonstrates a concerted effort by the government of a country to kill just because they voted to.

      A court is the only acceptable way, and I am pretty sure that's in the United Nations Charter.

      Parent

      A Court? (2.00 / 1) (#20)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:50:48 AM EST
      How?

      1. What are the standards of proof?
      2. Does the terrorist have a right to representation?
      3. How do we get evidence?
      4. Under what authority does the president make this court happen?
      5. Is the trial open to the public?
      6. How do we address the security concerns?

      Etc.  Courts make no sense for 2 dozen reasons.  Right now there are mechanisms pursuant to which representatives from both parties that we elected get to see classified information and have some oversight of black ops.  The easiest and only way, IMHO, would be to expand that already existing oversight to cover these sorts of missions.

      I do think Obama should work with congress to do that immediately. My primary concern is that we have elected officials from two branches of government involved in these situations.  I don't think the court is the right second branch for a number of reasons.

      Parent

      Anne (2.00 / 1) (#10)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:26:08 AM EST
      Please, for the love of all that is holy, can you not start every single response to me by assuming I didn't read the article.  You can read the article and come to a different conclusion.  Assume that if I comment on something, I have read it because I have.

      Thank you.

      Now as for your other points:

      I think that this is a unique situation in which the action taken would be very, very difficult to police and probably falls more within the powers of the executive branch.

      1. I believe that following such actions, the President should have to explain himself and provide an accounting to congressional members on a special oversight committee. I disagree that congress is being kept in the dark after the fact.

      2. Now GG's problem, which I suspect is a problem with most critics, isn't necessarily in the oversight, it's in the fact that the program exists at all.  In other words, as the quote from GG leads off, "In sum: the President can kill whomever he wants anywhere in the world (including U.S. citizens) without a shred of check or oversight"

      That's really at the heart of the issue and was what I was commenting on. I think that I do place a certain level of responsibility in my president's hands to make these kinds of decisions.  That's why we elect him and that's why the President has certain executive powers when it comes to national security.  There are some foreign security matters that require fast definitive action and wide oversight prior to such action is impractical and impossible.

      It's not optimal, but it is the best of a number of very bad options.

      The fact that I believe that doesn't mean I don't understand the facts.    Again, please, stop accusing me of not reading simply because I disagree.

      We can just disagree based on the same facts.

      Parent

      Oh piffle. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
      by lentinel on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:43:29 PM EST
      We elect someone because we must choose between two corporate hacks.

      Bush did whatever the fk he wanted, and so does Obama.


      Parent

      Overstated to the nth degree (none / 0) (#57)
      by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 03:26:21 PM EST
      Obama kept his promise to pull out of Iraq.  McCain and Romney disagreed.  And, wtih Iraq starting to spinout of contral, there will increased conservative attacks on Obama.

      Obama has not bombed Iran.  McCain and Romney are much more likely to do that than Obama.

      I am very happy with what Obama did in Libya.  He threaded the needle on that while facing criticism from every angle.  That action is a foreign policy innocation that will perhaps define Obama's foreign policy.  It was very JFK like imo.

      Parent

      If you think this drone program is OK (5.00 / 1) (#11)
      by eric on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:28:52 AM EST
      then where does one draw the line?  Can any nation do this?  Would it be OK for Cuba or North Korea or Iran or France or whomever to start killing people with drones, just because they feel like it?

      I am sure many other nations have grievances with groups or individuals that could be resolved by assassination via drone.  And one nation's reasons might not be in line with the reasoning of other nations, but isn't our policy just saying the hell with the law?  We say it is right and therefore it is?

      eric (none / 0) (#15)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:41:53 AM EST
      Fair points. I think this is only justified in situations (as in Pakistan) where the government has encouraged the terrorists. It can be a slippery slope but one very bright line would be that if your country was investigating, extraditing, and cooperating to crack down on terrorists in good faith, we should have no right to send the drones. I believe that there is an exception to this for political refugees harbored by a country (for example, if a Cuban non-violent refugee comes here, Cuba shouldn't bomb the prison, BUT if we for some reason harbored a terrorist who had killed Cubans, I  think the Cubans would be morally justified in bombing the guy's house).

      To be direct, if the Cubans sent a kill team to go after Luis Posada Carriles, I think we'd be in a tough spot morally.  That guy should have been extradited for trial in Venezuela of Cuba.

      Link

      I don't take the position lightly.  I am thinking about the ramifications of a situation like Posada's.

      Parent

      To be clear (5.00 / 0) (#17)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:44:43 AM EST
      Dear Big Brother:

      I do not advocate the bombing of anyone and am only thinking about the hypothetical moralities of the US harboring a terrorist and what that means to our standing to send drones to bomb others.

      Thanks in advance.

      ABG

      Parent

      To be ever clearer, (5.00 / 1) (#33)
      by lentinel on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:30:01 PM EST
      if the Obama administration is pursuing a policy that blurs long-standing boundaries between the CIA and the military, allowing "the White House to toggle between separate legal authorities that govern the use of lethal force", and in the process creating, a billion dollar industry that has "created blind spots in congressional oversight", it's OK with you.

      What the hey.
      No prob.

      Parent

      And does anyone really believe that (5.00 / 3) (#37)
      by Anne on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:11:06 PM EST
      if these policies and actions were being conducted under the power and authority of a Republican president, that ABG would be so nonchalant about it?  So willing to explain to us all why it makes ever so much sense?

      I don't think so, either.

      And if his attitude of it's-okay-as-long-as-we're-going-after-non-citizens wasn't bad enough, this is clearly someone who doesn't understand, or is choosing to ignore, the domestic ramifications of predator drone technology.  I guess ABG doesn't remember that the massive intrusions into our privacy here at home started as off-shore intelligence gathering designed to identify threats from terrorists.

      I've heard of people wearing blinders, and having tunnel vision, but this refusal to confront the totality of the issues, in service to this one man's political fortune, really plumbs the depths of craven and ignorant.

      Parent

      Obama apologists subscribe to (5.00 / 3) (#38)
      by shoephone on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:18:13 PM EST
      Nixon's dictum:

      "When the president does it, it's not illegal."

      Parent

      Well put (none / 0) (#19)
      by eric on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:47:57 AM EST
      I understand your position.

      Parent
      This is old news (5.00 / 1) (#16)
      by BTAL on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:42:54 AM EST
      "Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don't get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming."

      - Barack Obama
      White House Correspondence Dinner
      May 1, 2010

      A really sick joke (5.00 / 1) (#34)
      by lentinel on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:35:05 PM EST
      from Obama.

      Not only is he joking about the use of predator drones, but he is also inferring that the Jonas Brothers are incipient statutory rapists.

      What a sense of humor.


      Parent

      No different than the (none / 0) (#18)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:46:19 AM EST
      "I am going to meet my daughters dates with a shotgun in hand" joke lots of fathers have used at some point.

      Shotguns kill more people than drones.

      Parent

      I actually agree with (5.00 / 2) (#23)
      by BTAL on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:54:03 AM EST
      your previously posted position.

      However, the point here is that POTUS and the drone program is not the same as your response.  Also, your last line is a strawman.

      Parent

      I'll concede (none / 0) (#26)
      by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:17:36 PM EST
      that it was a stretch. My other point was more important than being right on the joke.

      Parent
      Some joke. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
      by lentinel on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:22:55 PM EST
      This is a man who has actually used drones to kill people.

      This is on the level of Bush's "joke" about not being able to find WMD.

      Parent

      Very good for local economy, apparently. (none / 0) (#1)
      by oculus on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 11:41:03 PM EST
      link

      As for the whole (none / 0) (#63)
      by CST on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 10:08:56 AM EST
      drone vs. boots on the ground question, I've been thinking about it, and here is where I draw the line -

      If we have declared war on you, and also have boots on the ground in your country, then I am marginally okay with using drones.  But without boots on the ground in said country, drones are too dangerous, because you have very limited ways of confirming that you are actually getting the right people, and ONLY the right people.

      I am not okay with secret wars.  Now I recognize that terrorism is not a traditional war with traditional borders.  But drones cannot be flying into some random country blind.  The risks are too high.