New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: DOJ Drones Paper: Obama's Second-Term Cabinet, Agenda Faces New Scrutiny
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/ ... l1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D266012
Published: Feb 4, 2013
Author: unknown
Post Date: 2013-02-05 04:36:00 by sneakypete
Keywords: None
Views: 2243
Comments: 7
WASHINGTON -- A report Monday night on the nature of the administration's drone program has the potential to dramatically revamp the debate over President Barack Obama's foreign policy and the confirmation process for his incoming cabinet. The report, by Michael Isikoff of NBC News, reveals that the Obama administration believes that high-level administration officials -- not just the president -- may order the killing of “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or an associated force even without evidence they are actively plotting against the U.S. “A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” states the Justice Department white paper quoted by Isikoff. The 16-page memo, given to Congress in June, is not the final Office of Legal Counsel memo that news organizations have sued to obtain. But it offers plenty of insight into the government’s justification for killing American citizens in overseas drone strikes. The paper states that the U.S. would be able to kill a U.S. citizen overseas when "an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government" determines the target is an imminent threat, when capture would be infeasible and when the operation is "conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles." The white paper suggests that such decisions would not be subject to judicial review and outlines a broad definition of what constitutes “imminent” threat. Constitutional experts said the memo's definition doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Administration critics immediately said the white paper is fresh evidence the president has abandoned his 2008 campaign pledge to recognize and respect the limits of executive power. Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union called the document "pretty remarkable" and said some of its arguments "don't stand up to even cursory review." He said the paper “only underscores the irresponsible extravagance of the government's central claim.” Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, called the document “profoundly disturbing” and said it was “hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances.” “It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority –- the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement before or after the fact,” Shamsi said in a statement. Watchdog groups and members of Congress have made repeated pleas for the administration to release internal documents outlining the rationale for the targeted killing program, especially when the target is an American citizen. NBC's report increases pressure on the administration to release additional documents. The White House did not immediately return a request for comment. Earlier on Monday, 11 senators signed a letter formally requesting that the administration provide its legal justification for drone strikes to Congress. Marcy Wheeler, a blogger who has closely tracked the requests, said it was at least the 12th time Congress had asked for such documents. The Justice Department white paper's publication comes at an unfortunate time for the White House, shepherding several top cabinet nominees through confirmation in the Senate. The leak may pose hurdles for the confirmation of John Brennan, the nominee for CIA director. Brennan, now a top White House adviser, is the architect of Obama’s drone policy. He has been a strong proponent of the expanded practice of targeted assassinations to kill suspected terrorists wherever they may be. It was under his watch that the Awlaki assassination was approved. In the final months of Obama’s first term, Brennan joined other members of the national security Poster Comment: Nothing to see here,people. Move on!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, *Bill of Rights-Constitution*, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#0)
ping
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Complete nonsense.
WTF? Sounds like a dumbya Bush policy!
Have you bothered to explain this to people like The Bush Crime Family,Trent "Power Sharing" Lott,Bob Dolt,John McLunatic,Massachusetts Mitt Romney,Lady Lindsey Graham,etc,etc,etc?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I've been saying since the day he was first elected that he is nothing more than Bush 4.0.,and got flamed from both partisan sides for it. Even worse news is that whoever replaces him will be nothing more than Bush 5.0. It's a fixed game now.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Well then, if an informed high-level official of another nation decides it's consistent with "applicable law of war principals" to drone bomb Obama, I guess it's cool then? Don't answer that!
No,that would be racist,and mega-uncool. Unless of course it was somebody darker than him that did the deed. Then we would never know it happened unless he had a honkie grandfather or grandmother. Then he would be just one more debbil honkie,and it would be shouted from the rooftops.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#2. To: sneakypete (#1)
*The Two Parties ARE the Same*
#3. To: sneakypete (#0)
“It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority –- the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement before or after the fact,” Shamsi said in a statement.
#4. To: A K A Stone (#2)
Complete nonsense.
#5. To: Fred Mertz (#3)
WTF? Sounds like a dumbya Bush policy!
#6. To: sneakypete, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#0)
U.S. would be able to kill a U.S. citizen overseas when "an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government" determines the target is an imminent threat, when capture would be infeasible and when the operation is "conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles."
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#7. To: hondo68 (#6)
Well then, if an informed high-level official of another nation decides it's consistent with "applicable law of war principals" to drone bomb Obama, I guess it's cool then?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]