Drone strikes on americans 'legal'

[volinbham]

When I was involved, every targeting decision required legal review with criteria for passing it up the chain for further review. We had criteria that allowed the local JAG attorney to state it was legal but other criteria that required review outside of military channels. For example, a clear target with low chance for collateral damage could be approved at the JTF level, but a target that was say, politically sensitive for some reason, might have to go to CENTCOM level or higher. I can't recall what point it would go over to the judicial branch but only recall that it did.

Of course when it did go over then it went to the secret court, which is its own can of worms...

My quick reading of that memo suggests no judicial review is deemed legally necessary.

Here's the bigger point for me. This memo is a CYA internal memo arguing why they believe they have the legal authority to do this.

Is it too much to ask that the internal assessment of legality be endorsed by the courts? IOW - make the case that this is legal and see if the courts agree with the internal interpretation.

As it stands, this administration wouldn't even explain their legal thinking. At a minimum this should see the light of day and be legitimized or ruled against.

 

[lawgator1]

While I am not surprised that some would take pot shots at Obama over this, I am disappointed.

If we had drone technology and Obama wasn't using it, the same people raising questions about this now would be complaining that he's a pussy if he wasn't.

 

[n_huffhines]

While I am not surprised that some would take pot shots at Obama over this, I am disappointed.

If we had drone technology and Obama wasn't using it, the same people raising questions about this now would be complaining that he's a pussy if he wasn't.

And if you were a true liberal, you'd have a completely different take on drone strikes. How does it make you any different than them?

 

[SaluteToTheHill]

While I am not surprised that some would take pot shots at Obama over this, I am disappointed.

If we had drone technology and Obama wasn't using it, the same people raising questions about this now would be complaining that he's a pussy if he wasn't.

While I am not surprised that you have reading comprehension issues I am disappointed.

I think the issue is the presidents lack of concern for civilians when he attacked the former presidents every move in the war on terror.

A study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.

 

[SaluteToTheHill]

And if you were a true liberal, you'd have a completely different take on drone strikes. How does it make you any different than them?

Drones are a very useful tool but when they are used carelessly just so soldiers arent killed its reckless. Obama is driving hatred toward Americans to whole new level with his drones.

 

[utvolpj]

While I am not surprised that some would take pot shots at Obama over this, I am disappointed.

If we had drone technology and Obama wasn't using it, the same people raising questions about this now would be complaining that he's a pussy if he wasn't.

so you have no issues with the POTUS ignoring due process for US citizens and just executing them for something they might do/might have done?

Seems this kind of power would put you out of a job

 

[lawgator1]

And if you were a true liberal, you'd have a completely different take on drone strikes. How does it make you any different than them?

I am very much torn on the issue. I understand on the one hand that we need to use this kind of technology to go after militants and organizers who we believe are, or are planning to be, involved in violent attacks against the US.

It is a function of fighting terrorism and a movement that we don't simply get to drop bombs on people wearing uniforms. What else are we supposed to do?

On the other hand, there is surely great potential for abuse. How certain are we that the target is a real threat? Collateral damage? Etc.? All very legitimate concerns and I have them, too.

But the politicization of the issue from Republicans is laughable, considering their support for some pretty ugly things over the prior administration.

I just find the critique quite disingenuous, and for the most part half-hearted.

While I am not surprised that you have reading comprehension issues I am disappointed.

I think the issue is the presidents lack of concern for civilians when he attacked the former presidents every move in the war on terror.

A study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.

The prior administrations main action was invading Iraq, which proved just monumentally stupid. Anyone with a brain in their head realizes that was just retarded.

The next issue is water-boarding and, again, I see both sides of that issue. Its not easy.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I don't think that's the point.

I think the point is that the staunchest supporters of Obama are the same ones who shat all over Bush for supporting things like waterboarding and phone tapping and whatnot, yet are sitting here complacently watching as Obama expands the Patriot Act and lets things like this become "legal". Then a lot of those people try to pass it off by implying it's something both sides do (which is true) when they weren't using the same excuses under Bush.

I got that. My sarcasm was lost on you.

 

[UGADawg4Life]

Yeah, because this is strictly a "left" position.

Never ceases to amaze me how little people (and mostly far-righters) know about civics and how gov't works. They assume that President Obama, or any president for that matter, just pulls a lever and "poof" legislation is enacted. Little do these nitwits realize, policy/law is originated in the houses of Congress before being signed or vetoed by the President. I'm a "centrist" formerly a registered Republican. I left the party because I could no longer stand the ignorance.

 

[YorkVol]

My quick reading of that memo suggests no judicial review is deemed legally necessary.

Here's the bigger point for me. This memo is a CYA internal memo arguing why they believe they have the legal authority to do this.

Is it too much to ask that the internal assessment of legality be endorsed by the courts? IOW - make the case that this is legal and see if the courts agree with the internal interpretation.

As it stands, this administration wouldn't even explain their legal thinking. At a minimum this should see the light of day and be legitimized or ruled against.

I agree with that. I think it would be appropriate to submit this for interpretation by the courts or to even work to get it added to the authority to use force against AQ. Unfortunately, and this is where I come all the way back on your side, the administration knows there is too much risk of the court not agreeing so they won't submit unless forced.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Never ceases to amaze me how little people (and mostly far-righters) know about civics and how gov't works. They assume that President Obama, or any president for that matter, just pulls a lever and "poof" legislation is enacted. Little do these nitwits realize, policy/law is originated in the houses of Congress before being signed or vetoed by the President. I'm a "centrist" formerly a registered Republican. I left the party because I could no longer stand the ignorance.

You should read the post above yours. It was a response to the same post of mine.

It was sarcasm. It went over both of your heads.

 

[utvolpj]

Will be interesting to see how the daily press conf goes and how Jay Carney will spin this.

interesting

White House press secretary said Tuesday the administration’s use of drones is “legal,” “ethical,” and “wise,” at a press briefing following remarks by President Obama.
“These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise,” Carney said.

 

[volinbham]

While I am not surprised that some would take pot shots at Obama over this, I am disappointed.

If we had drone technology and Obama wasn't using it, the same people raising questions about this now would be complaining that he's a pussy if he wasn't.

I have a big problem with W's warrantless wiretaps. Do you?

Where do you stand on principle of this exercise of executive power - if W was wrong (which I assume you would assert) why isn't Obama wrong?

Since you are outraged by hypocrisy are you disappointed that this is completely contrary to the criticisms Obama leveled at W? About being transparent yet refusing to even explain the legal foundation or extent of this type kill list?

 

[n_huffhines]

 

[volinbham]

Nobel Peace Prize winner outlines legal right to kill own citizens - what a world.

 

[lawgator1]

Nobel Peace Prize winner outlines legal right to kill own citizens - what a world.

You don't think we should attack those planning to attack us ? We saw the consequence of that when Bush and Rice didn't go after bin Laden in the face of memos al Qaeda was about to attack buildings using planes.

I'm not saying it can't be abused. I worry about that. I just don't see the alternative.

 

[n_huffhines]

Non-intervention. I'd say that's the best way to prevent blowback.

 

[VOLinthaNATI]

You don't think we should attack those planning to attack us ? We saw the consequence of that when Bush and Rice didn't go after bin Laden in the face of memos al Qaeda was about to attack buildings using planes.

I'm not saying it can't be abused. I worry about that. I just don't see the alternative.

What consequence have Obama and Hillary seen from the handling of Bengazi? You do know there were memos/warnings about an attack that were ignored. Ironic huh?

 

[hog88]

You don't think we should attack those planning to attack us ? We saw the consequence of that when Bush and Rice didn't go after bin Laden in the face of memos al Qaeda was about to attack buildings using planes.

I'm not saying it can't be abused. I worry about that. I just don't see the alternative.

The problem is the lack of oversight and the vague rules for being able to order an attack.

Hey we think LG is a terrorist cell leader, he's down in Jamacia, let's blow him up..

 

[lawgator1]

What consequence have Obama and Hillary seen from the handling of Bengazi? You do know there were memos/warnings about an attack that were ignored. Ironic huh?

The situations are remarkably different, and you know that.

But let's assume your comparison is valid. If we had intelligence that x, y, and z were planning to attack our compound, do you have a problem with our attacking them first? Drone or otherwise?

Because that would seem to be the conclusion one would reach from the criticism I am reading here, i.e. that we have to wait until attacked to fight back.

 

[lawgator1]

The problem is the lack of oversight and the vague rules for being able to order an attack.

Hey we think LG is a terrorist cell leader, he's down in Jamacia, let's blow him up..

I think that is a little far fetched, don't you?




I mean, Jamaica? Really? Vegas is more like it.

 

[hog88]

I think that is a little far fetched, don't you?




I mean, Jamaica? Really? Vegas is more like it.

The question you have to ask is, do you trust them to make the call? Remember no one can see their evidence or reasoning.

 

[AirVol]

Never ceases to amaze me how little people (and mostly far-righters) know about civics and how gov't works. They assume that President Obama, or any president for that matter, just pulls a lever and "poof" legislation is enacted. Little do these nitwits realize, policy/law is originated in the houses of Congress before being signed or vetoed by the President. I'm a "centrist" formerly a registered Republican. I left the party because I could no longer stand the ignorance.

So you jumped on the OBozo train gettin all the free handouts?

 

[volinbham]

You don't think we should attack those planning to attack us ? We saw the consequence of that when Bush and Rice didn't go after bin Laden in the face of memos al Qaeda was about to attack buildings using planes.

I'm not saying it can't be abused. I worry about that. I just don't see the alternative.

I think we should protect ourselves. When it comes to targeting US citizens for assassination with no due process I don't think it's too much to ask to have that authority legitimized by the courts prior to just assuming that power exists.

Did you make the same argument for warrantless wiretaps? Hey we have to protect ourselves right?

I noticed you only mentioned W as not going after UBL. What about Clinton not doing so after 2 embassy attacks and the USS Cole? What about the Gorelick Wall? Why make it partisan if it's just about protecting ourselves?

 

[volinbham]

The situations are remarkably different, and you know that.

But let's assume your comparison is valid. If we had intelligence that x, y, and z were planning to attack our compound, do you have a problem with our attacking them first? Drone or otherwise?

Because that would seem to be the conclusion one would reach from the criticism I am reading here, i.e. that we have to wait until attacked to fight back.

We had no more specific intelligence about 9/11 than we did Benghazi.

As for imminence - the memo specifically indicates that intelligence that x, y and z are planning to attack anything is simply not necessary to decide to assassinate a US citizen. We don't have to know what, where or when. Just that they pose a "threat".