HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Wow... It Gets WAAAY Wors...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:50 PM

Wow... It Gets WAAAY Worse... 'Whom Can The President Kill ?' - TheNewYorker (We Are Now Nixon)

WHOM CAN THE PRESIDENT KILL?
Posted by Amy Davidson - TheNewYorker
February 6, 2013



About a third of the way into in a Department of Justice white paper explaining why and when the President can kill American citizens, there is a citation that should give a reader pause. It comes in a section in which the author of the document, which was given to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees last year—and obtained by Michael Isikoff, of NBC, on Monday—says that this power extends into every country in the world other than the United States, well beyond those where we are engaged in hostilities. The reference is to an address that John R. Stevenson, a State Department legal adviser, gave before the Association of the Bar in New York in May, 1970, to justify the Nixon Administration’s incursion into Cambodia. Does that make everyone, or anyone, feel better about what the Obama Administration has decided it can do, or the extent to which it thought through the implications, unintended consequences, precedents, and random reckless damage it may be delivering with this policy?


More: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/02/the-release-of-a-doj-white-paper-about-targeted-killings.html









74 replies, 4314 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 74 replies Author Time Post
Reply Wow... It Gets WAAAY Worse... 'Whom Can The President Kill ?' - TheNewYorker (We Are Now Nixon) (Original post)
WillyT Feb 2013 OP
2on2u Feb 2013 #1
JoePhilly Feb 2013 #2
sadalien Feb 2013 #4
JoePhilly Feb 2013 #5
WillyT Feb 2013 #10
sibelian Feb 2013 #38
babylonsister Feb 2013 #3
WillyT Feb 2013 #7
KoKo Feb 2013 #6
WillyT Feb 2013 #8
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #49
markpkessinger Feb 2013 #20
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #21
graham4anything Feb 2013 #53
G_j Feb 2013 #56
graham4anything Feb 2013 #58
G_j Feb 2013 #54
quadrature Feb 2013 #9
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #12
WillyT Feb 2013 #13
quadrature Feb 2013 #15
WillyT Feb 2013 #16
ReRe Feb 2013 #31
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #11
bobduca Feb 2013 #14
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #23
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #44
Octafish Feb 2013 #32
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #43
Octafish Feb 2013 #47
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #52
David Zephyr Feb 2013 #62
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #37
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #45
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #50
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #51
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #65
sibelian Feb 2013 #39
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #46
sibelian Feb 2013 #68
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #69
okieinpain Feb 2013 #57
cthulu2016 Feb 2013 #17
WillyT Feb 2013 #18
MadHound Feb 2013 #19
markpkessinger Feb 2013 #22
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #24
WillyT Feb 2013 #25
morningfog Feb 2013 #26
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #70
dkf Feb 2013 #27
W T F Feb 2013 #28
triplepoint Feb 2013 #29
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #55
WillyT Feb 2013 #59
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #71
bvar22 Feb 2013 #30
ReRe Feb 2013 #35
bvar22 Feb 2013 #60
ReRe Feb 2013 #61
bvar22 Feb 2013 #63
ReRe Feb 2013 #67
tpsbmam Feb 2013 #33
Solly Mack Feb 2013 #34
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #36
woo me with science Feb 2013 #40
Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #41
xchrom Feb 2013 #42
ProSense Feb 2013 #48
arely staircase Feb 2013 #64
KoKo Feb 2013 #66
leftstreet Feb 2013 #72
woo me with science Feb 2013 #73
woo me with science Feb 2013 #74

Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:53 PM

1. Birthers beware..... wow.... yes wow. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:55 PM

2. Na, Obama will just put you in his FEMA work camps.

That's what my Tea Party brother in law tells me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:58 PM

4. The New Yorker is hardly World Net Daily.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadalien (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:01 PM

5. So Obama can kill you, but not put you in work camps?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:25 PM

10. Why Not... He Can Kill You... But Not Torture You...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:00 AM

38. He probably won't, but what will the president following him do? nt


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)


Response to babylonsister (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:11 PM

7. Do You Remember Cambodia, Laos, And Vietnam ???

Because I DO !!!

Was paying very close attention... as my friend's brother's were dying over there in that bullshit.

I missed the draft by one year.

And my old man... WWII and Korean Marine Vet...

Told me that if I needed to move to Canada, he'd drive me there, and pay my first and last month's rent.

He said, "I didn't fight in those two goddamned wars so that you'd have to go... I fought in them so you wouldn't have to."

And I will love him for that... forever.



And BTW... I don't "froth".

And BTW, BTW... It's The New Yorker... DEAL WITH IT !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:08 PM

6. It's sad that DU doesn't have members who remember NIXON/Watergate

....so they look on what is going on with eyes that are Partisan and not geared towards what our Country was founded on and what has held it together legally through the years even with the ups and downs.

Constitution and Bill of Rights....it's what we need to always look back to for guidelines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:12 PM

8. Word !!!






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:25 AM

49. I'm no fan of the Occupy movement

But suppose, just suppose, they're still around when the next Republican is elected and that president says, "Hm-m-m...a few of them have been convicted for trying to build bombs and stuff. Hey! It's an ideologically motivated act of violence so that makes it terrorism."

He wouldn't need to use drones, which would make a mess of US streets, he could just order them rounded-up and disappeared. Bullet behind the ear or missile through the window; dead is still dead. And Work-a-Day Joe won't complain. All he knows is that someone finally did something about all the dirty hippies cluttering up the sidewalks and roads he uses to get to the office.

However, I've been told that slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy; so I'm sure there's nothing to worry about. Nothing at all. We have absolutely nothing to fear, so everyone just go back to doing whatever it was they were doing before. It'll all be okay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:36 PM

20. There are some of us who are old enough to remember...

. . . but you make a good point!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:36 PM

21. Beg to differ, alas! One of my best summers was spent watching the Watergate Hearings! Oh, and

I was part of the campus protests of the Cambodia Invasion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:42 AM

53. I damn well remember Nixon, and LBJ would have beaten him in 1968

 

protesting was groovy and all that back then
We all did it, we protested for peace, and McCarthy and McGovern were kool people, nice guys and come on, does anyone in the world think either was going to win, even if we voted or wanted to vote for them???

And in retrospect, however, it directly led to Nixon.

Anyone tell me if
Henry Kissinger is a favorite of theirs?

this is 2013 NOT 1968.
1968 led to Nixon, by selling out LBJ
50 wasted years after that.
and Nixon sabatoged the peace talks

so were we better off with Nixon???

this fake parallel people are running with is bull.

IMHO.

again, Nixon led to the Bush's.

We can cure cancer, but in 1968 we couldn't cure some of them.

as Benjamin Franklin said
An ounce of protection is worth a pound of cure.
He seems to have been talking about drones there.

Here it is if they can keep it means to me- Protect the thing he gave us, yeah, by using drones if it comes to it, after dilligent detective work, is what he means.

BTW-speaking of the constitution- all of this IS AUTHORIZED as per the rules.
Don't like Congress?
Vote them out.
but it is legal and authorized and none of the rightwing would say get rid of it, would they?

or would they?

It took republicans to help Lincoln(who did the same thing but drones weren't around then), and it took republicans to help LBJ get the acts signed, because of the racist part of the democratic party back then led by Wallace and the others.(Again, how many votes did Wallace pull from HHH in 1968, that would have gone to LBJ, a southerner had he run.

We should have been begging LBJ to run in 1968, IN RETROSPECT it is easy to see.

IMHO
because the bad thing LBJ did in the war would have been done by any president.
But the great things LBJ did would only have been done by him, at that time.

And losing was not an option in 1968, where we were in a second to second countdown
against Russia as witness by the Man on the Moon race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #53)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:54 AM

56. Well if I read you correctly, all our activism was a waste

of time, or worse yet, directly lead to years of Republican policy. Of course that is your opinion, one I don't agree with. I would blame the "Reagan Democrats" among other things, certainly not the activists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #56)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:12 AM

58. Was it worth it to have Nixon/Ford/Reagan/bush/Bush and possibly Bush,jeb in 2016?

 

Both entered the white house because of doing illegal things to get in, Reagan with the hostage interference, Nixon beating an inferior candidate, thought a great guy, nice guy, and liberal (but not as liberal as LBJ was btw).

HHH ran with all the baggage of LBJ, but not on any of the positives.

So, was it worth it in retrospect?

And the war didn't end for years later.

Looking back it is clearer, we can't go back, no sense in whining either way, but make sure we don't fracture and at the worse, hold ones nose and push that vote for the democratic presidential candidate, no matter who it is.
The worst democratic candidate is indeed better than the best republican presidential candidate.

And dividing on one issue(the war in 1968) and letting that trump all the other issues, well again, is it worth it, when the other side won't stop the war(s) and the other side won't do the good stuff.

Protests are great, but electing a better congress is a more worthy time in 2013. This is not 1968.

Did voting in Nixon and Reagan over say LBJ and Carter really better America?

Look at the comments every major REALISTIC thought about politician on the democratic side-Elizabeth Warren said everything should be on the table re:Iran.

Reagan should never have had a democratic voter. But the fracture between Carter and Kennedy, and then the 3rd party run of John Anderson...what good did that do?
I love Teddy, but 1980 was the one wrong time for him to run.
(Should have run in 1972,1976 or 1984 instead.)

I wouldn't have said these things back then either.
But in retrospect, sad to say, it is all true. imho of course.

BTW-the protesters of the 60s, so many of them ended up running for office that were not underground. And some won, some lost.
And those like Mark Rudd, on his website the last few years, has backed President Obama and other 60s protesters have backed the President.
Nobody gets 100%.

So the correct question is-
would the other side do the same bad stuff?
then ask
would the other side do any of the good stuff?

IMHO the first question is YES, the second one is NO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:43 AM

54. When Nixon bombed Cambodia there were demonstrations

across the country. I attending a huge one in DC. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:18 PM

9. has Obama's hit list been made public?

people on the list should be given
a chance to surrender.

can I make a FOI request
or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quadrature (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:34 PM

12. LOL. Wow. Are you actually serious?? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quadrature (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:38 PM

13. Apparently Not...

<snip>

The white paper contradicts the ACLU, which tried to challenge the government’s authority to kill US citizens suspected of terrorism through targeted killings away from the battlefield through its case, Al-Aulaqi v. Obama. It argued that Anwar Al-Awlaki deserved to be put on notice that he was placed on a “kill list” and be informed of the criteria that led to his placement, as he had not been convicted or charged with a crime:

The government’s refusal to disclose the standard by which it determines to target U.S. citizens for death independently violates the Constitution: U.S. citizens have a right to know what conduct may subject them to execution at the hands of their own government. Due process requires, at a minimum, that citizens be put on notice of what may cause them to be put to death by the state.


It outlines how due process and the Fourth Amendment would not apply by stating, “We recognize that there is no private interest more weighty than a person’s interest in his life. But that interest must be balanced against the United States’ interest in forestalling the threat of violence and death to other Americans that arises from an individual who is a senior operational leader of al Qaida or an associated force of al Qaida and who is engaged in plotting against the United States.”

<snip>

From: http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/02/05/the-legal-basis-obama-administration-officials-use-on-terror-tuesdays-to-authorize-targeted-killings/




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:11 PM

15. who defines what 'due process' is? nt

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quadrature (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:20 PM

16. Eric Holder...

"'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security." Holder said. "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."


From: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/eric-holder-targeted-killing


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:39 PM

31. So...

Hi WillyT. So, what is the difference between due process and judicial process? Due process is 4th amendment, and judicial process is National Security? So where are the National Security laws written? Do the American People have access to the National Security amendment or law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:32 PM

11. This article states that the policy goes back to the Nixon Administration, but guess what?....

....The policy actually goes back to the Eisenhower Administration and the 5412 Group of which Nixon was the White House point-of-contact. This group was involved in covert actions throughout Central America, South America, and the Caribbean Basin, to include assassinations.

The CIA in JFK's Administration was involved in several clandestine and failed plots to kill Castro, and was becoming increasingly more involved as "advisers" in South Vietnam.

Operation Phoenix was launched in Vietnam in 1967 under LBJ's Administration. The program was designed to identify and "neutralize" (via infiltration, capture, terrorism, torture, and assassination) the infrastructure of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (NLF or Viet Cong). The program wasn't officially ended until 1972.

In addition to the program referenced in the OP's post and the continuation of Operation Phoenix, we all know the Nixon Administration was involved in a lot of additional clandestine ops, both foreign and domestic.

The Ford Administration may well have been involved in nothing of consequence.

The Carter administration authorized the shipments of arms to Afghanistan and whatever the CIA needed to conduct a clandestine operation in that country.

The administrations of Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II all did their share to expand US clandestine ops, to include the introduction of drones under Bush II.

But hey, let's just blame President Obama for a program he inherited, right?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:45 PM

14. Are those to blame for this policy still president?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:39 PM

23. When did Castro become an American citizen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #23)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:48 AM

44. Hmmm. I thought we were talking about the US policy of overseas assassinations....

....regardless of nationality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:55 PM

32. Eisenhower was president when CIA hired Mafia to kill Castro, not Kennedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #32)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:47 AM

43. But, RFK continued that policy as JFK's AG. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #43)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:46 AM

47. No. RFK ordered CIA to stop dealing with the MAFIA

I'm not trying to argue with you OldDem2012. I'm trying to correct misunderstandings that have arisen and been perpetuated due to CIA's long history of deceit when it comes to the assassination of President Kennedy.

The record shows, while RFK encouraged certain Cuban exiles, none were authorized or "sanctioned" to assassinate Castro.

From DUer Deb Conway and her online resource, JFK Lancer:



***May 7, '62 - RFK briefed on past CIA-Mafia Plots: RFK meets with Richard Helms (Helms later denied this meeting took place despite a specific indication on RFK's calendar), and later that afternoon with Sheffield Edwards and CIA general council Lawrence Houston for a briefing on pre-Bay of Pigs organized crime assassination plots. (Testimony of Lawrence Houston HSCA, p62 National Archives) "Mr. Kennedy stated that upon learning CIA had not cleared its action in hiring Maheu and Giancana with the DOJ he issued orders that the CIA should never again take such steps with first checking with the DOJ."; CIA does not tell RFK the organized crime plots will continue. (Memo for IG from Sidney D. Stembridge Acting Director of Security 3.16.76, quoting FBI memo FBI 62-109060-4984 - states May 9,'62 as the date for this briefing.) Houston testified that RFK insisted "There was not to be any contact of the Mafia...without prior consultation with him." (Church Committee, Houston, 6/2/75 p37)

CONTINUED...

http://www.jfklancer.com/cuba/index.html



As they did with RFK, the CIA did not inform the Warren Commission of any of this important information:



Why did the CIA not give information on the Castro assassination attempts to the Warren Commission? In 1975, in his Church Committee testimony, Richard Helms was asked if he was charged with furnishing the Warren Commission information from the CIA, information that he thought was relevant?

Helms: No sir, I was instructed to reply to inquiries from the Warren Commission for information from the Agency. I was not asked to initiate any particular thing.

Senator Morgan: In other words if you weren't asked for it, you didn't give it.

Helms: That's right, sir.


(Helms testimony, 7/17/75)

ALL the DETAILS: http://www.jfklancer.com/cuba/castroplots.html



CIA continued in a similar way to obstruct justice in the Kennedy assassination investigation. CIA never revealed to HSCA members and staff that its liaison to the HSCA, George Joannides, was a direct participant in events in New Orleans that involved Lee Harvey Oswald.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #47)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:41 AM

52. Okay....appreciate the additional info. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #52)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:53 PM

62. When it comes to all-things-JFK, I defer to Octafish.

I lived during JFK's brilliant administration, those shining, but short years, and my library is filled with JFK bios and books of that time. I can't count the hours I've spent at the amazing JFK Library and the visits to his birth home in Brookline. I say all of that to tell you that I've never met anyone here at the DU with such a detailed and yet over-arching perspective on JFK than Octafish. He can correct me anytime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:40 AM

37. Yes. We've been the bad guys for a long time now. So what? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:50 AM

45. Exactly my point. Thanks for seeing it. Can't just blame the President for this policy. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:30 AM

50. Because if it was bad when dealing with foreign entities we were at war with

then expanding it to American citizens is worse. Obama shouldn't be expanding it, he should be diminishing it and uses the powers available to him to find better alternatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #50)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:39 AM

51. How exactly has it been expanded? What "better alternatives"? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:36 PM

65. Have you lost all sense of reason? "They did it too" is what children say to excuse their bad acts.

 

Perhaps you remember this one? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:10 AM

39. "let's just blame President Obama for a program he inherited, right?"


Well, actually, what it comes down to is whether the programme is morally acceptable to you or not. Whether it's "fair" or "unfair" to "blame" Obama depends on his actions, not those of other people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #39)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:04 AM

46. It's morally acceptable to me to not have to send in US troops to do the same job....

....as a drone can do, but run the risk of US casualties or worse. Additionally, using a drone is far more preferable to me than using an airstrike that will cause a large number of civilian casualties, far larger than that caused by a missile from a drone. I also don't have a problem with firing a missile at an American who has chosen to take up arms against the US....he or she has forfeited any rights under the 6th Amendment.

What got us into this current mess can be laid directly at the feet of Bush II for getting us into Iraq under false pretenses, and choosing to occupy Afghanistan instead of eliminating the bulk of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden when we first had the chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #46)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:15 PM

68. "he or she has forfeited any rights under the 6th Amendment"


You seem to think rights are like PRESENTS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #68)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:43 PM

69. Unless the 6th Amendment has been rewritten in the last few seconds, the 6th Amendment....

....reads as follows:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

As can be seen, the rights afforded by this amendment do not apply to Americans overseas who have decided to take up arms against the United States. Those individuals are not committing crimes in any US state or territory. They are instead engaging in acts of war and/or terrorist acts in a foreign country with whom a state of war exists.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:01 AM

57. +1 n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:28 PM

17. Cambodia was one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon (in committee)

Nixon was not impeached —I am referring to the process in committee

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:32 PM

18. THANK YOU !!!






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:35 PM

19. Worse, this policy puts such power in the hands of any future Nixon.

 

Bad enough that it is being used by Obama. Now, just think of this power in the hands of somebody with the morality of Tricky Dick.

You reap what you sow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:37 PM

22. That is the biggest issue . . .

. . . and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why so many cannot or will not see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:41 PM

24. Because they've bought the Fear Propaganda. "In An Emergency, Shred This Document."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:43 PM

25. Psst... I Lean Toward "Will Not"...




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:55 PM

26. I don't even understand those who put this trust in Obama.

I don't trust anyone with this power. Certainly not the person who asked for this to be legally justified. Let's be clear. This white paper was not the President asking if such assassinations are legal, but how can it be argued that they are legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:55 PM

70. The "future Nixon" has already come and gone. His name was Bush II....

....and he left this country, and how we're perceived by other countries, in terrible shape. If the President had not beaten McClain and Romney in the last two elections, where would we be now?

Our policies of assassinations and torture began under the Eisenhower Administration and were facilitated by his VP, Richard Nixon. Every president since then has somehow enhanced or attempted to legalize those policies. We've been reaping what we sowed for decades now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:00 PM

27. How can we be sure this is not used in the US against any group deemed a terrorist organization?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:08 PM

28. What about Congressional Republicans?.......Can he kill them??

They are after all, A threat to democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:16 PM

29. This Insures a Permanent State of War for the U.S.

 

and of course...it IS a war crime. We will NEVER have clean hands...EVER again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triplepoint (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:48 AM

55. That's what I've been saying, it makes it easier to wage covert war

on an ongoing basis and it looks "ethical, human, clean" because we are not putting boots on the ground or seeing flag draped coffins, but what will not be shown is the indiscriminate killing these drones will facilitate. Most troubling of course is the extrajudicial killing of US citizens because drones take the human element out of it. Imagine a domestic target and trying to order US military pilots to kill citizens, that would be problematic. Not so for a drone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #55)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 12:15 PM

59. Wow... Just Wow... Hadn't Looked At It That Way... Until Now...

"Imagine a domestic target and trying to order US military pilots to kill citizens, that would be problematic. Not so for a drone."





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triplepoint (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:00 PM

71. This may come as a surprise to a lot of people, but we've been in a state of....

...permanent war with somebody since the end of WWII.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:35 PM

30. DURec.

....even though this is from a known Right Wing Source that always hated Obama
and loves terrorists.

It is sad to see so many DUers lining up on the wrong side of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #30)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 12:08 AM

35. Huh?

... since when is the New Yorker a "known right wing source?" I didn't know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #35)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 12:34 PM

60. It MUST be a Right Wing Source.

The logic goes like this.

The Right Wing disagrees with Obama.

The New Yorker disagreed with Obama.

Therefore, The New Yorker = The Right Wing

Case Closed.


You may laugh,
but this childish non-logic is common on DU,
and ALL it takes to get labeled a Spewer of Right Wing Talking Points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #60)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:44 PM

61. Ah...

OK, thanks. "That" kind of logic. Which, to me, is no logic at all. The following is MY logic:

John Brennan = Dick Cheney. John Brennan is a holdover from the fucking GWB administration. And this is exactly why I don't like the "team-of-rivals" business. But, does this make ME anti-Obama? No! I love PO just like everyone. I voted for him twice. But that doesn't mean I agree with his "team-of-rivals" administration. Lincoln did it, JFK did it, and you remember what happened to them.

I am old enough to be POs mother. I latched on to him when he made that speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. This is what I said as soon as he finished that speech: "Now, THAT is a Statesman." Then he became Senator Obama. And in the back of my mind, I thought "another step." Then he announced that he was running for President and I was ecstatic. I was torn between him and Hillary, but when the Primary came, I did choose PO. I followed him (on TV) on his campaign trek around the country and couldn't believe the crowds he drew. And I voted for him, and was delirious when they announced that he had won.

But. Then he started choosing his cabinet. I said nothing, but in the back of my mind I was so frightened for him, since he had chosen the team-of-rivals trail. I had to accept his choices and have prayed that he would be alright. He has done many things I disagreed with and I have said so, but that doesn't mean I am anti-PO! And now he has been reelected and his cabinet is looking allot better as it shapes up. And he has taken a different tone. And I am as proud of him and Michelle & their family as I ever was, as if he was my own son.

So, I hope nobody misinterprets my dislike of John Brennan, as If were against Obama, as nothing could be further from the truth.

And The New Yorker is NOT a right wing rag.

The hearing starts at 2:30 EST, about 45 minutes from now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #61)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:26 PM

63. During Campaign 2008, I rejoiced at the "Team of Rivals" declaration.

I mistakenly thought, "Hooray. After 20 years of exile, the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party is going to get a voice in the administration!!!!"

Then THIS happened:

The DLC New Team
Progressives Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

...and I realized that nothing had changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #63)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:00 PM

67. I was not fooled by...

"Team of Rivals". I knew what it meant, and it scared the bejesus out of me. Scared for PO, i.e.
But hey, he's going strong and I'll keep knocking on wood. Well, at least Rahm isn't there anymore, nor Summers and now Geithner, Salazar is on his way out...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 12:02 AM

33. How quickly the President forgets

He was accused of beginning his political career in cahoots with an American "terrorist." And he was once considered a leftist counter-culture type when he was a community organizer. So....now the Obamas of the USA...like the Occupies that are bring targeted by the FBI aming others....could be targeted as a "threat" with no defense allowed before they're hit? How minds have sadly morphed with the acquisition of power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 12:06 AM

34. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 12:16 AM

36. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:16 AM

40. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:26 AM

41. I wished this could be kicked for the next 4 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:03 AM

42. Du rec. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:06 AM

48. Ah, the last "liberal" President.

WTF said that?

Does that make everyone, or anyone, feel better about what the Obama Administration has decided it can do, or the extent to which it thought through the implications, unintended consequences, precedents, and random reckless damage it may be delivering with this policy?

Why would anyone fear another "liberal" like Nixon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:31 PM

64. it is interesting the writer brings up cambodia

exactly the kind of carpet bombing put everyone to the sword type of operation that drones have made less likely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:58 PM

66. ...1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:10 PM

72. DURec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:24 PM

73. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 02:34 PM

74. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread