http://openchannel.nbcnews.com...-americans?lite

A leaked memo gives justification for using drone strikes against US citizens abroad.  I don't object to this practice per se, but I think the threshold for their use has to be pretty high, and I think as laid out in the memo, it is not:

For example, though the white paper requires an "imminent threat", it has a pretty broad definition of the word "imminent": "The condition that an operational leader present an 'imminent' threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future,"

http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...ke-bush/272862/

BC

Conor Friersdorf is another pious moralizer in the Glenn Greenwald mode. Absolutely useless. I have to add that the particular case of Awlaki could not be more poorly chosen, from the point of view of opponents. The US citizen in question emigrated to a foreign country, well beyond the US warrant, and conspired ceaselessly against the lives of US citizens. He was fully aware that he was targeted - the case was litigated to the appellate court of the 6th (?) Circuit. He could have desisted in his activity, and saved his life. It was also his choice to endanger the life of his son. Spare me your expressions of regret - as Big Bill put it, he made love to this employment. 

However, unless the leaked memo is some speculative draft (been known to happen), it IS disturbing. The use of drones and robotic law enforcement in general has some truly ominous implications. I don't see the technology as threatening in the present climate - but let us decay away from the pluralistic democracy we now enjoy, as we surely will, and the use of this stuff to perpetuate a dictatorship is truly frightening.

http://www.wired.com/threatlev...+Top+Stories%29

“The parallels to the Bush administration torture memos are chilling. Those were unchecked legal justifications drawn up to justify torture,” said Vincent Warren, the Center for Constitutional Rights’ executive director. “These are unchecked justifications drawn up to justify extrajudicial killing.”

So much for the idea of double standards vis a vis Obama and Bush.  In fact, much of the most vocal criticism of Obama in this realm is coming from the left.  Here's the ACLU:

http://www.aclu.org/blog/natio...argeted-killing

and here is Mother Jones:

http://www.motherjones.com/moj...r-drone-strikes

Quote of the day:

"The government needs the approval of a judge to detain a suspected terrorist. To kill one, it need only give itself permission."

BC

I agree with both of your points.  I think at the time both of us defended the targeting of Awlaki as he had a choice; he could always have turned himself in and would have been offered appropriate Constitutional protections afforded a US citizen in US custody.

But I also agree that the memo, as written, provides way too much latitude to the executive branch.  There is a place for a drone attack against a US citizen abroad, but it should be considered the last option; capture must truly be infeasible, and an attack must be imminent in the true meaning of the word, or it needs to be authorized by a judge.

BC

Good points, but where the Left just kills itself in these debates is not recognizing the good faith of all involved. 

You might recall me predicting five years ago (time flies) that Obama would keep the Bush security apparatus pretty much intact, and also that the Left - rather than considering whether its own values were out of step - would regard Obama as a traitor to the cause. So it has happened.

BTW, had there been an ACLU in 1863, 150 years ago, its cries for the impeachment of Abraham Lincoln would have been unceasing. Of course, he would have jailed them all . . .

On the other side of the aisle, Mike Huckabee spent the opening 6-7 minutes of his radio show this morning condemning this memo.

Huckabee was pretty scathing.  He noted how rarely he and the ACLU agree but that this was one of those times.

Aren't we supposed to have a government of laws, not of men?  When you're relying on the good faith of those in power, that principle has been lost.

JSinSF wrote: Aren't we supposed to have a government of laws, not of men?  When you're relying on the good faith of those in power, that principle has been lost.

Not sure I've ever seen a more appropriately responsive post on the CEB. 

So true JS.

The road to ruin is paved with good intentions.

In general, I like drone strikes; easy kills against bad peeps.

With that said, I am surprised that this administration is saying, waterboarding non US citizens who are members of AQD is not allowed, but executing US citizens who are members of AQD without any judicial oversight is okay.  To quote Jay Carney, 

These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise

http://freebeacon.com/carney-d...l-ethical-wise/

Well, if you put it that way ...

But I think there is a difference between a person who is entirely in your custody, vs. someone you cannot otherwise apprehend without a fight. I think your dividing line of "US citzen" vs "non US citizen" is the wrong framework to use for the situation.  The real difference is a terrorist in the wilds vs a terrorist under custody.

That said, I think the government also has a wrong framework going on here. You need to determine if the terrorists are a military organization or a criminal one, they may be both, but you have to pick, clearly, which they are for the purpose of the government's actions.  I think the desire to avoid this definition (which would then limit what the government can do either way), and the use whichever is better for political gain at anytime, is the crux of valid criticisms of these actions. It was Bob Barr (who I otherwise love) who stated it most clearly back in 2001. He said declare war on AQD (for which there was precedent). But no one in the establishment would have any of that, too direct, too principled.

ok to kill

not ok to waterboard without killing

go figure

Liberal/politically correct pretzel 'logic'

FrankO wrote: ok to kill

not ok to waterboard without killing

go figure

Liberal/politically correct pretzel 'logic'

Even if I agreed with you, Frank, I would point out that this is the same standard our justice system is built around.  We apply the death penalty but we can't torture prisoners before we do.

are you against drone killing

or against waterboarding (without killing)

or both?

I'm flatly against torture.

I'm approving of drones in military combat but concerned about the way this administration is using them.  The program needs more oversight.  A targeted killing needs more justification than simply someone in the administration having a reasonable suspicion that someone might be planning an attack.  I also think the collateral damage of killing nearby innocents -- 4000-5000 by most estimates including 200-300 children so far -- is terribly harmful to the United States in the long run.

This morning's Forum program on KQED was a discussion about the legal justification behind the memo.  Basically it comes down to your definition of what a battlefield is and who an "operational leader" is.  In recent years we've greatly expanded both in a way that I think is a slippery slope.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Obviously, it is in the eye of the beholder whether waterboarding constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and whether execution constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.  However, on the latter question, the USSC is clear; Gregg v. Georgia reaffirmed the United States Supreme Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, and I will note that while the death penalty is legal in some thirty-odd states, I don't believe waterboarding is legal anywhere.  So, this is not just liberal/politically correct pretzel logic, it is the logic of the law in most jurisdictions in the country.

The bigger issue which Thibodeaux2 noted is that of custody.  Let's take the case of Alwaki, who was in Yemen.  Hypothetically, if the CIA had captured him, they could not legally execute him.  Conversely, while it would certainly be torture if, while in custody, a CIA officer put a bullet in his knee, it would not be considered torture if he were shot in the act of trying to apprehend him. Hell, your average police officer can taze a suspect in the course of trying to arrest him, but once the suspect is in custody, that is no longer an option, barring, say, an attempt to flee. There are simply different standards of conduct when one is in custody versus when one is not.

I am against both torture and the death penalty.  But under the right circumstances, for someone who cannot be captured and is planning a terrorist act, I do not see how that logic is twisted.  My objection to the memo stems from two aspects: 1) there are no judicial checks on targeting a suspect with a drone. 2) The administration defines "imminent" way too broadly.  Drone strikes should only be used as a last resort, not because it is the easy way out.  JSinSF nailed it.  While I am sure no individual is going to contemplate a drone strike lightly, you cannot simply say that a high ranking official can order a drone strike because they make a determination that it should be done.

BC

Boston Card wrote: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Obviously, it is in the eye of the beholder whether waterboarding constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and whether execution constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.  However, on the latter question, the USSC is clear; Gregg v. Georgia reaffirmed the United States Supreme Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, and I will note that while the death penalty is legal in some thirty-odd states, I don't believe waterboarding is legal anywhere.  So, this is not just liberal/politically correct pretzel logic, it is the logic of the law in most jurisdictions in the country.

The bigger issue which Thibodeaux2 noted is that of custody.  Let's take the case of Alwaki, who was in Yemen.  Hypothetically, if the CIA had captured him, they could not legally execute him.  Conversely, while it would certainly be torture if, while in custody, a CIA officer put a bullet in his knee, it would not be considered torture if he were shot in the act of trying to apprehend him. Hell, your average police officer can taze a suspect in the course of trying to arrest him, but once the suspect is in custody, that is no longer an option, barring, say, an attempt to flee. There are simply different standards of conduct when one is in custody versus when one is not.

I am against both torture and the death penalty.  But under the right circumstances, for someone who cannot be captured and is planning a terrorist act, I do not see how that logic is twisted.  My objection to the memo stems from two aspects: 1) there are no judicial checks on targeting a suspect with a drone. 2) The administration defines "imminent" way too broadly.  Drone strikes should only be used as a last resort, not because it is the easy way out.  JSinSF nailed it.  While I am sure no individual is going to contemplate a drone strike lightly, you cannot simply say that a high ranking official can order a drone strike because they make a determination that it should be done.

BC

Good post BC.

The lack of oversight beforehand or accountability afterwards is the most concerning to me. I'm not sure by whom the oversight should be conducted (it seems odd to be involving a local federal judge in an international military action- maybe a small panel including congressional members should be established) but having reasonably well articulated standards needs to be part of it.

Which brings me to imminent. Truly imminent would be an almost impossible standard to satisfy in many to most cases when attempting to stop hostile clandestine actions. Perhaps a different standard should apply to one who has engaged in past terrorist acts and is known to be furthering future such acts whether imminent or not.

Well, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act created special FISA courts that can issue warrants against suspected foreign international agents.  It would not be difficult to create a similar court to deal with authorizing drone attacks, or of expanding the existing courts.

BC

This is the first time I've seen that figure.   Or any figure, frankly.   So, considering I still have strong memories from the Iraq report of roughly 4-years ago claiming 660,000 Iraqis killed (a figure which I find absurd and laughable)  I'm more than a bit skeptical.

Can you please offer up a link to something so I might have some context for this?

Thanks very much....

Michael Forrest

ccTop wrote: I'm flatly against torture.

I'm approving of drones in military combat but concerned about the way this administration is using them.  The program needs more oversight.  A targeted killing needs more justification than simply someone in the administration having a reasonable suspicion that someone might be planning an attack.  I also think the collateral damage of killing nearby innocents -- 4000-5000 by most estimates including 200-300 children so far -- is terribly harmful to the United States in the long run.

This morning's Forum program on KQED was a discussion about the legal justification behind the memo.  Basically it comes down to your definition of what a battlefield is and who an "operational leader" is.  In recent years we've greatly expanded both in a way that I think is a slippery slope.

I found this:

http://livingunderdrones.org/

The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.

The website was put together by Stanford Law School, so it has at least some credibility, though I had never heard of TBIJ.  It does look like ccTop's estimates are off by a factor of 10.

BC

Thanks very much....

And to be clear, that's over a span of more than 8 years covering two completely different administrations.

Boston Card wrote: I found this:

http://livingunderdrones.org/

The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.

The website was put together by Stanford Law School, so it has at least some credibility, though I had never heard of TBIJ.  It does look like ccTop's estimates are off by a factor of 10.

BC