DOJ kill list memo forces many Dems out of the closet as overtly unprincipled hacks

[Genx87]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/11/progressives-defend-obama-kill-list

We have already talked about this subject of cheering for ones team. But I think Greenwald hit the ball out of the park with this piece.

I think this is probably the most important part of the article. I have seen this exact argument used on topics regarding this disgusting policy from liberal and conservative posters. And politicians use this tactic every time they need to push their agenda. Gun bans are a recent example. Target a single weapon as the "bad" guy. Once institutionalized how do you justify opposing the next weapon they target?

In doing so, this document helpfully underscored the critical point that is otherwise difficult to convey: when you endorse the application of a radical state power because the specific target happens to be someone you dislike and think deserves it, you're necessarily institutionalizing that power in general. That's why political leaders, when they want to seize extremist powers or abridge core liberties, always choose in the first instance to target the most marginalized figures: because they know many people will acquiesce not because they support that power in theory but because they hate the person targeted. But if you cheer when that power is first invoked based on that mentality - I'm glad Obama assassinated Awlaki without charges because he was a Bad Man! - then you lose the ability to object when the power is used in the future in ways you dislike (or by leaders you distrust), because you've let it become institutionalized.

And if this doesnt worry the left it should.

What also made this last week unique was the reaction of the American Right. Progressives love to recite the conceit that Republicans will never praise Obama no matter what he does. This is a complete sham: conservatives, including even Cheney himself, have repeatedly lavished praise on Obama for his embrace of Bush/Cheney policies in these areas. But this past week, they did so with such effusive enthusiasm that the cognitive dissonance could not be ignored.

Supreme GOP warmonger Lindsey Graham announced his intention to introduce a Senate resolution praising Obama for his assassination program. RedState's Erick Erickson wrote a Fox News column denouncing civil libertarians and defending Obama: "we must trust that the president and his advisers, when they see a gathering of al-Qaida from the watchful eye of a drone, are going to make the right call and use appropriate restraint and appropriate force to keep us safe." Michelle Malkin criticized her own staff for attacking Obama and wrote: "On this, I will come to Obama's defense." Others vocally defending Obama included John Bolton, Peter King, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann.

These are not just Republicans. They are the most extreme, far-right, warmongering conservatives in the country. And they are all offering unqualified and enthusiastic praise for Obama and his assassination program. In our political culture, where everything is viewed through the lens of partisan conflict and left-right dichotomies, this lineup of right-wing supporters is powerful evidence of how far Obama has gone in pursuit of this worldview. That, too, made the significance of last week's events impossible to ignore.

And to finish with selective quoting.

In other words, Obama has embraced and expanded the core premises of the Bush/Cheney global war on terror that Democrats so vehemently claimed to find offensive, radical, a "shredding of the Constitution". And they are now supportive for one reason and one reason only: it's a Democratic president whom they trust - Barack Obama specifically doing it - rather than a Republican president they distrust. That is the very definition of vapid, unprincipled partisan hackdom, and it matters for several reasons.

Time to wake up from the dream and start demanding accountability from our govt instead of blindly following a party to our demise.

 

[Lithium381]

Frog in Boiling Water . . . .

 

[werepossum]

I think Greenwald makes two errors. First, Awlaki was not killed "because he was a Bad Man". Awlaki was killed because he was part of the leadership of a terrorist organization with which we are at war. Second, Awlaki was not "assassinated", he was killed in a military strike as a legitimate part of military leadership.

I think Greenwald does have a point though; this should not be a CIA function. We're blurring the line between military and political when the CIA has armed drones, and that does bode ill for the future. These functions should always be kept separate; any armed drone should have uniformed military pilots with military chain-of-command authorizing the actual strike. Otherwise it's admittedly difficult to separate assassination from legitimate military strike.

 

[Genx87]

I think Greenwald makes two errors. First, Awlaki was not killed "because he was a Bad Man". Awlaki was killed because he was part of the leadership of a terrorist organization with which we are at war. Second, Awlaki was not "assassinated", he was killed in a military strike as a legitimate part of military leadership.

I think Greenwald does have a point though; this should not be a CIA function. We're blurring the line between military and political when the CIA has armed drones, and that does bode ill for the future. These functions should always be kept separate; any armed drone should have uniformed military pilots with military chain-of-command authorizing the actual strike. Otherwise it's admittedly difficult to separate assassination from legitimate military strike.

Him using "bad man" was in reference to how people, in this case liberals justify these institutionalized policies.

And by claiming him part of leadership you are doing what the left is doing. Rationalizing the killing of an American citizen without a tria based on what the administration has labeled himl. What is your opinion on killing his 16 year kid? He also part of the leadership? I know the administration lied about his age to make it look like he was a legit\legal military target by saying he was 20 years old. But the family produced a birth certificate from our country stating otherwise. Which was not a good start. What say you?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I think Greenwald makes two errors. First, Awlaki was not killed "because he was a Bad Man". Awlaki was killed because he was part of the leadership of a terrorist organization with which we are at war. Second, Awlaki was not "assassinated", he was killed in a military strike as a legitimate part of military leadership.

I think Greenwald does have a point though; this should not be a CIA function. We're blurring the line between military and political when the CIA has armed drones, and that does bode ill for the future. These functions should always be kept separate; any armed drone should have uniformed military pilots with military chain-of-command authorizing the actual strike. Otherwise it's admittedly difficult to separate assassination from legitimate military strike.

You of course have proof that he was a senior leader in AQ right? Link please? And the evidence that he was plotting an attack on the US as well please.

And how do you explain the totally separate assassination of his 16 year old American citizen son? Bad luck? Or was he another super-duper AQ leader as well?

And yes, he was assassinated.

 

[BoberFett]

Genx87 just hates Obama because he's black.

 

[cwjerome]

You of course have proof that he was a senior leader in AQ right? Link please? And the evidence that he was plotting an attack on the US as well please.

Sure, let me dip into a host of top secret files, just because you feel you deserve the access.

And how do you explain the totally separate assassination of his 16 year old American citizen son? Bad luck? Or was he another super-duper AQ leader as well?

Collateral damage. Word to the wise, if your mom or dad hangs with terrorists and plots against the US overseas, you may inadvertently get hit.

And yes, he was assassinated.

He was a military target in military operations = not assassination.

 

[JTsyo]

Him using "bad man" was in reference to how people, in this case liberals justify these institutionalized policies.

And by claiming him part of leadership you are doing what the left is doing. Rationalizing the killing of an American citizen without a tria based on what the administration has labeled himl. What is your opinion on killing his 16 year kid? He also part of the leadership? I know the administration lied about his age to make it look like he was a legit\legal military target by saying he was 20 years old. But the family produced a birth certificate from our country stating otherwise. Which was not a good start. What say you?

Are trials allowed in the US without capturing the person to be tried? If not it would seem to be a gray area when you have criminals/traitors in hostile areas.

I too find the CIA operating drones meant to attack very disturbing.

 

[PokerGuy]

Sure, let me dip into a host of top secret files, just because you feel you deserve the access.

That's the whole point. It's not that I need to know or you need to know, but that there is proper judicial review. There has been no trial or any evidence presented at all. We are told he's a bad guy, and we're just supposed to accept the opinion of the executioners that he was a bad guy. No review, no oversight, no accountability, no trial, no evidence. Just execution.

I'm fine with taking out terrorists, but this line is getting dangerously blurred when there's no real definition of who is a 'threat to national security'. What mechanism is in place to prevent abuse of the power to simply kill someone without any justification or oversight?

He was a military target in military operations = not assassination.

So we are told. How do you know this to be the case when there is no independent (judicial) oversight?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Sure, let me dip into a host of top secret files, just because you feel you deserve the access.

This is one of the problems I have with current politics. Secrets are more important then people.

He was a military target in military operations = not assassination.

No, a ammo depot is a military target in military operations. A person, even the leader of enemy forces, if singled out for death is said to be assassinated.

 

[marincounty]

The biggest mistake the OP and the writer make is assuming Obama is some kind of left wing politician. He is get-along backslapper kind of politician, not a left winger. Kind of like a Clinton without the folksiness.
I get very concerned whenever right wingers praise something Obama is doing, because they are nuts.

 

[cwjerome]

That's the whole point. It's not that I need to know or you need to know, but that there is proper judicial review. There has been no trial or any evidence presented at all. We are told he's a bad guy, and we're just supposed to accept the opinion of the executioners that he was a bad guy. No review, no oversight, no accountability, no trial, no evidence. Just execution.

There doesn't need to be a judicial review, if he's a combatant, it makes no difference if he's an American citizen. As far as oversight, accountability, and evidence, it's all there only in a military setting that's mostly classified TS.

I'm fine with taking out terrorists, but this line is getting dangerously blurred when there's no real definition of who is a 'threat to national security'. What mechanism is in place to prevent abuse of the power to simply kill someone without any justification or oversight?

I have seen the motley conglomeration of SOPs and TTPs that cover issues that are infinitesimally smaller in scope and importance and it reassures me because the processes involved for the targeted use of force against a potential US citizen must be extreme.

So we are told. How do you know this to be the case when there is no independent (judicial) oversight?

The US citizen operating as a combatant overseas is no more entitled to judicial overview than the terrorist standing next to him who was born in Pakistan. US lawyers inside the military and the intelligence community have already determined that if someone fulfills the requirements of being a combatant, US citizen or not, it's legal under both domestic and international law to kill them in operations against the enemy.

The subject of oversight is embedded within the laws of war we operate under. It is not discretionary or standardless, there are an untold number of rules we follow, the same necessity, proportionality, and doctrinal rules we follow in any circumstance of warfighting whether we're talking about pissing on dead bodies, leveling a whole block, or striking a HVT with a hellfire.

Welcome to today's asymetrical battlespace, where a target is more likely to be a person than a ball-bearing factory or bridge.

 

[cwjerome]

This is one of the problems I have with current politics. Secrets are more important then people.

Well, in many cases the secrets are there to protectpeople. Let's say we have a trial and numerous sensitive secrets are leaked compromising the lives of 10 or 20 or 1000 people. Now what?

 

[BoberFett]

Well, in many cases the secrets are there to protectpeople. Let's say we have a trial and numerous sensitive secrets are leaked compromising the lives of 10 or 20 or 1000 people. Now what?

What if there are secrets that endanger millions? Now what?

 

[blackangst1]

I think Greenwald makes two errors. First, Awlaki was not killed "because he was a Bad Man". Awlaki was killed because he was part of the leadership of a terrorist organization with which we are at war. Second, Awlaki was not "assassinated", he was killed in a military strike as a legitimate part of military leadership.

I think Greenwald does have a point though; this should not be a CIA function. We're blurring the line between military and political when the CIA has armed drones, and that does bode ill for the future. These functions should always be kept separate; any armed drone should have uniformed military pilots with military chain-of-command authorizing the actual strike. Otherwise it's admittedly difficult to separate assassination from legitimate military strike.

ORLY?

 

[Generator]

Democrats have no principles. All they seek is power and its retention of it. These creatures really don't know what to do with power, but they know its there to be had. So they chase it, fuck it, marry it, claim it. Whatever long as they can be around it.

For those who fall into the red team, blue team dynamic swamp will never comprehend what Greenwald is talking about.

 

[cwjerome]

What if there are secrets that endanger millions? Now what?

I don't know, take a vacation? I'm not making the connection here. My point was that spilling secrets in judicial review would most certainly put lives at risk.

 

[thraashman]

I think Greenwald makes two errors. First, Awlaki was not killed "because he was a Bad Man". Awlaki was killed because he was part of the leadership of a terrorist organization with which we are at war. Second, Awlaki was not "assassinated", he was killed in a military strike as a legitimate part of military leadership.

I think Greenwald does have a point though; this should not be a CIA function. We're blurring the line between military and political when the CIA has armed drones, and that does bode ill for the future. These functions should always be kept separate; any armed drone should have uniformed military pilots with military chain-of-command authorizing the actual strike. Otherwise it's admittedly difficult to separate assassination from legitimate military strike.

I wonder how many times the CIA has targeted for killing Americans overseas in the past. It's probably been more common than we think. But you're right, the campaign against Al Qaeda needs to be a military one and thus this program needs to fall under the realm of the military, not the CIA. And it should have oversight, either proper military chain of command as to whom they consider valid military targets, or perhaps closed judicial review. NOT Congressional review though, the partisanship of Congress would invalidate any legitimate review they could provide. And frankly I'm against ever letting it be possible for Darrel Issa to have access to any sensitive information against lest he again leak it.

 

[werepossum]

Him using "bad man" was in reference to how people, in this case liberals justify these institutionalized policies.

And by claiming him part of leadership you are doing what the left is doing. Rationalizing the killing of an American citizen without a tria based on what the administration has labeled himl. What is your opinion on killing his 16 year kid? He also part of the leadership? I know the administration lied about his age to make it look like he was a legit\legal military target by saying he was 20 years old. But the family produced a birth certificate from our country stating otherwise. Which was not a good start. What say you?

I don't know anything about his kid; sounds like someone screwed up. But it's worth pointing out that it's not ONLY leadership who are legitimate targets, it's anyone in the organization. Minors are frequently combatants, especially suicide bombers, but I agree it's not likely the kid was worth targeting with a drone. I'd go farther and say that I don't think minors should be targeted unless engaged at the time in military or terrorist actions. But mistakes and collateral damage are always going to be a significant part of war, and given that mistakes are going to be made, I'd prefer those killed to be innocent civilians in hostile nations rather than American soldiers, airmen and Marines. If we ban drone strikes, we offer the terrorist sanctuaries and must accept either more American terrorist victims or more American military casualties.

You of course have proof that he was a senior leader in AQ right? Link please? And the evidence that he was plotting an attack on the US as well please.

And how do you explain the totally separate assassination of his 16 year old American citizen son? Bad luck? Or was he another super-duper AQ leader as well?

And yes, he was assassinated.

I don't actually have any information about al Qaeda leadership rolls and roles. Surprising I know considering that Obama and I are practically blood brothers. I can only suspect that my total lack of security clearance, connection to government or military, and need to know are somehow causing discrimination in those who dispense such information. And we all know that discrimination is wrong.

Please feel free to believe that the Messiah is a bloodthirsty monster assassinating innocents from playing too much Grand Theft Auto, or too much blow, or even the malign influence of all those guns around him. Although I disagree with most of what he believes, I'll trust him and just be glad someone, be it Obama or Bush or Romney, is fighting back. With of course the understanding that war is almost exclusively conducted within a fog, always subject to friction, and therefore mistakes will be made.

 

[werepossum]

ORLY?

A lot of invective in that article, but the only point offered is that Awleki was "far from any battlefield." So was Saddam Hussein. Leadership in bad militaries is usually far from any battlefield; same for terrorists. As we've seen with most terrorist leaders, their own safety is paramount to them. Should they then get a free pass to plan the operations? We already fight with one arm tied behind our backs; should we tie up the other arm as well outside of battlefields? That virtually guarantees that the battlefields will be of the terrorists' choosing. Surely we learned better in Vietnam?

I wonder how many times the CIA has targeted for killing Americans overseas in the past. It's probably been more common than we think. But you're right, the campaign against Al Qaeda needs to be a military one and thus this program needs to fall under the realm of the military, not the CIA. And it should have oversight, either proper military chain of command as to whom they consider valid military targets, or perhaps closed judicial review. NOT Congressional review though, the partisanship of Congress would invalidate any legitimate review they could provide. And frankly I'm against ever letting it be possible for Darrel Issa to have access to any sensitive information against lest he again leak it.

To my knowledge in the past it's been confined to spies and has been vanishingly rare. I'm not sure that judicial review really adds much, unless it's SCOTUS; how hard is it to find a tame judge?

My ideal scenario would be that the CIA builds its case, the military agrees, and the President reviews their evidence and rules the the individual in or out as a legitimate target. The drone would then be piloted by a military pilot, with a military officer in his direct CoC approving any strike in real time. I do not think that CIA pilots should have armed drones; let the CIA direct military pilots with military officers standing close by to immediately authorize a strike for targets of opportunity. Congress has the Constitutional responsibility of oversight, but should never be in the decision process. Leahy for instance is widely known as Leaky Leahy for his habit of immediately turning over classified information to reporters for political purposes; if it's not Issa, then I'm sure there's another Republican serving the same function. Politics trumps all. Nonetheless, I do not think that Obama (or Bush) takes lightly the decision to kill another human being, perhaps especially an American citizen. Ordering the death of another human being is a far different thing than using that decision for political advantage.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I think Greenwald does have a point though; this should not be a CIA function. We're blurring the line between military and political when the CIA has armed drones, and that does bode ill for the future. These functions should always be kept separate; any armed drone should have uniformed military pilots with military chain-of-command authorizing the actual strike. Otherwise it's admittedly difficult to separate assassination from legitimate military strike.

Agreed.

It was only yesterday I learned this was a CIA/DoJ deal. I had mistakenly believed the military was involved in identifying targets etc. IMO, this changes things.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

I don't know, take a vacation? I'm not making the connection here. My point was that spilling secrets in judicial review would most certainly put lives at risk.

The connection is pretty simple. You believe revealing secret information puts a few lives at risk. I believe that the current trend toward more and more state secrets put all of us at risk.

I'm a citizen, not a subject. An adult not a child. I don't need to be protected from information. If there are government secrets so sensitive that the average American can't know about them without tearing apart the fabric of society [drama added] then I question whether the government should be performing those actions at all.

 

[SMOGZINN]

There doesn't need to be a judicial review, if he's a combatant, it makes no difference if he's an American citizen. As far as oversight, accountability, and evidence, it's all there only in a military setting that's mostly classified TS.

We are not at war. This is at best a police action against terrorism. Are we now going to say that anyone at any time can be considered a enemy combatant if POTUS doesn't like them? This is functionally what we are saying when we allow the military to target people, even American citizens, with no declared war and no over site, and when we ask for some evidence this person was a combatant we are told that it is classified.

And what is up with 'declaring war' against ideas? Could we now declare war against halitosis and freely kill any one with bad breath? What about a war against racism and just take out the majority of the tea party supporters?

I don't know, take a vacation? I'm not making the connection here. My point was that spilling secrets in judicial review would most certainly put lives at risk.

Spilling secrets MIGHT put lives at risk. We can be sure that keeping the secrets have cost at least one life.

 

[BoberFett]

We are not at war. This is at best a police action against terrorism. Are we now going to say that anyone at any time can be considered a enemy combatant if POTUS doesn't like them? This is functionally what we are saying when we allow the military to target people, even American citizens, with no declared war and no over site, and when we ask for some evidence this person was a combatant we are told that it is classified.

And what is up with 'declaring war' against ideas? Could we now declare war against halitosis and freely kill any one with bad breath? What about a war against racism and just take out the majority of the tea party supporters?



Spilling secrets MIGHT put lives at risk. We can be sure that keeping the secrets have cost at least one life.

:thumbsup:

 

[werepossum]

Agreed.

It was only yesterday I learned this was a CIA/DoJ deal. I had mistakenly believed the military was involved in identifying targets etc. IMO, this changes things.

Fern

Most of the drone strikes are CIA; they are better at it. Unfortunately it's not I think a legitimate function of the CIA.

We may also be seeing the military refusing to perform strikes in those areas, in which case I would support the military and not support the strikes. Those who train for war best know the rules, and I'm much more comfortable with the military telling civilian leadership that a certain operation is off the table than vice versa. But I suspect it's merely that the CIA has a LOT of drones capable of carrying Hellfires or Mavericks, some very good and experienced pilots, and more disposable income.