Holder spells out why drones target US citizens

[woo me with science]

http://www.kqed.org/news/story/2012/03/05/86841/holder_spells_out_why_drones_target_us_citizens?source=npr&category=u.s

Holder Spells Out Why Drones Target U.S. Citizens

by Carrie Johnson | March 5, 2012 — 9:03 PM

It's one of the most serious actions the U.S. government could ever take: targeting one of its own citizens with lethal force.

Since last year, U.S. drones have killed three Americans overseas. But Attorney General Eric Holder says the ongoing fight against al-Qaida means those kinds of deadly strikes are now a way of life. And judging from the reaction to his national security speech at Northwestern University Law School on Monday, so is the hot debate over the legality of the U.S. drone program.

Since President Obama took office, he's deployed drones against terrorism suspects in an unprecedented way. But the program is covert, so although foreign governments and reporters have chronicled those strikes, no U.S. official is supposed to mention them directly. Instead, as Holder acknowledged, they use euphemisms like targeted killing or use of force.

....
"They are claiming the authority to kill any American citizen whom the president deems to be an enemy of the state," Jaffer says, "and that authority is not reviewable before the fact by any court and it's not reviewed after the fact by any court."

...
They'll remain hidden from view, Waxman says, because that's the nature of the modern fight against terrorism, which clashes with Obama's promise of transparency.

Source: NPR

[xchrom]

1. Fantabulous! Nt

[bighart]

2. You know if you put Rush Limbaugh in the thread title

it would get more attention.

I find it sad that there seems to be more outrage at what round boy said than there is at the fact that our government now openly says we are fair game and open to be targeted.

[sad sally]

3. +1000

The dumbing down of America marches on...

[woo me with science]

5. Behold the DU3. nt

[Uncle Joe]

16. Rush Limbaugh's 20+ years of hate filled demagoguery has only helped bring this about.

He lifetime public narrative has polarized the nation pulling policies to the extreme right, authoritarian quadrant of the political spectrum for both Republican and Democratic Parties.

Rush is all about empire, war and his propaganda has been most effective in brain washing the American People; making the cumulative legion of choices which has led us to this point.

Limbaugh is certainly not totally responsible but he and his ilk as integral cogs in the propaganda machine that make up the corporate media can most definitely be tied to the path our nation has taken in regards to war, criminal punishment, xenophobia, general hatred and diminishment of the people to the corporate state.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200709270010

Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are "phony soldiers"

[sad sally]

4. From last October:

Speaking hours after the world learned that a C.I.A. drone strike had killed Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, President Obama could still not say the words “drone” or “C.I.A.” That’s classified.

Instead, in an appearance at a Virginia military base just before midday Friday, the president said that Mr. Awlaki, the American cleric who had joined Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen, “was killed” and that this “significant milestone” was “a tribute to our intelligence community.” The president’s careful language was the latest reflection of a growing phenomenon: information that is public but classified.

The passage demonstrates well how classification undercuts meaningful public discussion of vital national-security issues. The CIA’s drone war in Pakistan and Yemen is being talked about around the world; in Pakistan, details about strikes are reported more promptly and deeply than in the United States. Only in the U.S. is the public subjected to stilted, bizarrely passive statements from officials about matters that are common knowledge. The reason: here, the CIA drone program is “covert action.” Officially acknowledging its existence could be grounds for a criminal prosecution.

http://harpers.org/archive/2011/10/hbc-90008266

Wait until the President's personal army/private assassination squad, "the Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC, a clandestine sub-command whose primary mission is tracking and killing suspected terrorists," is moved from the Pentagon administration/budget to the CIA's - then anyone, including any American deemed to be a terrorist, will be fair game to be assassinated by presidential orders, and will never have to tell anyone why they made that determination.

If this is policy under a Democratic presidency, what will it look like when there's another Republican administration?

Remember CIA Director Petraeus called JSOC "an almost industrial-scale counterterrorism killing machine."

[woo me with science]

6. Thank you. nt

[woo me with science]

7. Kick

[bighart]

8. Where are all the people that SHOULD BE ALARMED BY THIS?

[Trillo]

9. Duck and cover? nt

[hifiguy]

10. Holder is an embarrassment.

This is no different from the tripe spewed by John Yoo and the rest of Chimpoleon's legal enablers. Not one bit. That an AG appointed by a Democrat would dare to mouth this bullshit disgusts me on a molecular level.

[surfdog]

11. I am confused

The police have the authority to shoot and kill a dangerous suspect without giving him a trial

Why should the average policeman have more authority than the president of the United States of America ?

Why aren't we verbally attacking the police departments in this nation ?

[sabrina 1]

12. We do attack police departments when they shoot people and there are reviews

etc to determine if the shootings were necessary. There have also been many lawsuits filed, successfully, and sometimes even consequences for police actions. The POTUS is not a Police Officer although that seems to be changing.

[surfdog]

13. I guess you admitted it right there

The authority to kill Americans without due process does exist

You just said as much

[sabrina 1]

30. No, actually I said that when such a killing occurs there has to be proof that it was

justified. A PO cannot just SAY someone was a criminal, otherwise s/he could just go kill anyone they want to without fear of prosecution. Police Officers have killed and have been prosecuted and convicted when it was found there was no just cause for the killings.

I cannot believe you just said this:

The authority to kill Americans without due process does exist

Please provide proof of this in the Constitution, or in any law if you can. The only law I know of that now asserts this is the one that is the topic of the OP. And that is why there is so much controversy over it. The President himself knows it is a bad law, and has stated he will issue a signing statement to minimize the claims made in the law.

You are confirming the fears of everyone who objected to this law. You are now moving the goalposts to the US where according to you, any officer of the law can kill any citizen without just cause.

[gratuitous]

15. You're really confused?

Police will shoot someone in an emergent situation who's a danger to himself or others. There are publicly available guidelines for those situations. In many communities, there are citizen review boards who are tasked with reviewing the situation, and while discipline is not usually enforced on offending officers, it happens sometimes. And people do indeed verbally, legally, and otherwise "attack" police departments, or at least try to hold them responsible for their public actions.

Let us know how much of these community reviews and safeguards you see in place for this "secret" program that your tax dollars are paying for. I'll even go you one better, since Mr. Al-Awlaki was apparently killed: What was he doing - right that moment as we was riding in a car - that could be dealt with only through a sudden missile strike? And what "dangerous" activity was Al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son doing a few weeks later that he similarly was blown to Kingdom Come by our nameless government agency? Who's reviewing those actions? What if they got it wrong? Who will we hold responsible for mistakes?

"Confused"! Sheesh.

[surfdog]

19. You're kidding right ?

He was an Al Qaeda leader involved in recruiting and planning operations

Unreal that there are people on this forum defending Al Qaeda leaders

So your view is since Al Qaeda leaders refused to turn themselves in for trial , we just have to let them go

Take a bow

[gratuitous]

32. According to whom?

Who said Al-Awlaki was an Al Qaeda leader? Based on what evidence? And if we have evidence, what's the problem with apprehending him and bringing him in for a trial? Or don't you trust our Constitution and the laws we have in place to deal with criminal wrong-doing?

And if Al-Awlaki's guilt can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then his summary execution becomes first degree murder. Who's going to be prosecuted for that? And what about his son's death? Same thing? The punishment for the alleged sins of the father falls on the next generation as well?

You can call that anything you want, I suppose, but "justice" isn't really one of them.

Take a bow yourself for your inability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. I'll continue to defend the Constitution, because without it, we don't have a United States of America. I know that's not a popular notion in the country at large, and even here at DU, it seems a majority of folks are willing to shitcan the Constitution. More's the pity.

[Downtown Hound]

18. "The police have the authority to shoot and kill a dangerous suspect without giving him a trial"

Yeah, when that person poses a threat to somebody's life, as in actively pointing a gun or other such lethal instrument and with the perceived intent to use it.

The police can't just go open fire on a car of gang members not doing anything but riding in their car just because they're gang members. And that's the authority that the president has now claimed for himself, except it's against "terrorists," not gang members.

Really dude, if this is truly confuising to you, might I suggest some reading material, like say, the U.S. constitution?

[surfdog]

20. Oh please

An Al Qaeda leader who's involved in recruiting and planning attacks against US interests does not qualify as being a threat to the country ?

Now I heard it all

[Downtown Hound]

21. Why not arrest him and prove it in court?

You say he's so, but apparently don't want to prove it in court. Now, why would that be?

[Downtown Hound]

24. Hmmm....crickets. Why are you afraid to answer this question?

[surfdog]

28. I think we Asked bin Laden to turn himself in

But he said no

what was your plan B ?

[Downtown Hound]

33. So you're saying that a Seal team can get in close enough to kill him but not bring him in?

Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2012, 05:41 PM - Edit history (2)

Oh, that was my plan B, bring him in, make him stand trial for his crimes and actually prove him guilty of acts that he has always denied doing.

Wow, radical concept huh? PROVING somebody guilty instead of just killing them on the spot. I could swear that I came across that concept once, now where was it?

Oh yeah, the U.S. constitution.

[Downtown Hound]

36. Oh and, that's not really an answer.

Bullshit and rather unsophisticated snark, but not an answer. Do the police kill everybody that doesn't turn themselves in? No? Wow! You mean that people can be taken by force and not killed? NO WAY!

I tell you, the wonders never cease.

[surfdog]

22. Go ahead and tell me what Osama bin Laden was doing when we killed

Bin Laden was just chilling in his house when we showed up and killed him , he never killed any Americans he was only involved in the planning

That's the same defense that you just spelled out for your buddy that was killed in Yemen

Go ahead and tell me what Osama bin Laden did to deserve being shot in the head , just try to square your answer with your previous post

[Downtown Hound]

23. Um, I happen to think killing Bin Laden was a dumb thing to do

As to what he was doing when he died, well I really don't know and don't see how it's relevant.

If he was involved in 9-11, then let's bring him back here and try him for it. Killing him and dumping him in the ocean makes me kind of wonder if maybe they didn't want that because he wasn't involved and they knew it. You know, that whole inside job theory.

[surfdog]

26. Holy fucking shit

Are you serious?

You're asking why it was relevant to what Osama bin Laden was doing when he was shot when you were the one that brought up that your Yemen buddy wasn't doing anything illegal when he was

You brought up the point it's relevant because you brought it up

So it was legal to kill Osama bin Laden because he was involved in the planning of the attacks but it's not okay to kill your Yemen buddy when he was involved in planning attacks

Such massive hypocrisy

[sabrina 1]

31. There were charges against Bin Laden. What were the charges against Al Awlaki and

his 15-year-old son?

[Downtown Hound]

34. "So it was legal to kill Osama bin Laden because he was involved

in the planning of the attacks but it's not okay to kill your Yemen buddy when he was involved in planning attacks."

Okay first of all, the Yemeni man isn't my buddy. Shame on you for taking the Limbaugh route and suggesting that everybody who questions a rather hawkish military policy is sympathetic to a theocratic terrorist movement.

Second of all, hypocrisy? You really do have reading comprehension troubles don't you?

"So it was legal to kill Osama bin Laden because he was involved in the planning of the attacks but it's not okay to kill your Yemen buddy when he was involved in planning attacks

Such massive hypocrisy."

Okay now, I'm only going to say this one more time, and I'm going to TYPE IT OUT IN BIG BLACK CAPITOL LETTERS SO THAT MAYBE YOU'LL UNDERSTAND IT. I doubt it though.

I SAID BIN LADEN SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN KILLED THE WAY HE WAS. Comprendo? Do you understand English? I never said it was okay to kill one and not the other. YOU said that I said that. I think bin laden should have been tried in an open court, and let's see what the government's evidence against him is.

Tell me something, why are you so willing to believe a government that lied us into the Iraq War, the Vietnam War, and God knows how many other clusterfuck messes, when they tell you it was bin laden that attacked the WTC? Do you remember how the government once said that some North Vietnamese patrol boats attacked us and got us into Vietnam? Turns out that was a big bullshit lie too.

But somehow, anybody that questions the official account of a government that lies so repeatedly and so often is considered crazy.

Yeah, keep giving up your civil rights to the governement, surfdog. Go ahead, let them take out people at random and with no trial because THEY SAY they are bad. Let them lock them up forever with no trial because THEY SAY they are terrorists. The government wouldn't lie to you, would it?

[Downtown Hound]

14. Hey Holder, do the world a big favor and take a big bite out of an African bee hive. n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. Any democrat with any "pro" sensibility would condemn this asshole

His FBI chief is a Bush appointee.

His drug wars...... suck

His ATF crap in Mexico sucks

He sucks

I can't believe he's even still there except to maintain the Bush status quo.

What an asshole.

[surfdog]

25. This thread reminds me of ....

The idiots who were outraged that Manning was kept in 23 hour lockdown accusing Obama of starting this practice

When the facts are this practice has been going on for many many years , if those idiots ever tuned in to MSNBC on the weekend they would see 23 hour lockdown is quite common , but no fuck the facts let's attack the president with lies

[Downtown Hound]

35. Actually 23 hour lockdown is only used for prisoners that have broken rules

engaged in violence, or need protection.

I think people were questioning if Manning met any of those criteria, and if not, then why is he being kept in lockdown?

[LanternWaste]

37. The corollary being, "it's ok if you're a democrat..."

"but no fuck the facts let's attack the president with lies..."

The corollary being, "it's ok if you're a democrat..."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. He left out the part about "looking tough" in an election trumps the constitution.

[woo me with science]

29. And how tragic that we now raise American citizens

Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2012, 04:54 PM - Edit history (2)

ignorant enough of our Constitution to see that as a plus.