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

[cwjerome]

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.

The only trend that's occurring is there is more information today, and therefore more secrets. This is a harmless trend because it's just a reflection of living in an information society.

You may be a citizen and you may be an adult and you may not need to be protected from information. But that's all irrelevant. It's not about you.

There is no tearing apart the fabric of society, this is pretty basic stuff. A US citizen fighting for the enemy in WWII or Vietnam would be killed. The same applies today, only now the enemy is not a nation, the battle is asymetrical, and the bleed over between law enforcement and military operations is becoming substantial. If you look at the broader "war" against international terrorists who are out to attack the US and our interests, there are many components; diplomatic, economic, cyber, military, law enforcement, etc. This multipronged reality looks a lot different from the traditional wars of old.

 

[werepossum]

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.

I think technically we are at war, but you have a point. As a matter of principle Congress should draft clear declarations of war, including the words "We declare war on" and identifying the groups targeted. A declaration of war should not result in reasonable people debating whether we are at war, and if so with whom, and it should be on specific identifiable groups. If we're too politically correct to name the groups we're fighting, perhaps we're not quite ready to go to war and should not cover it up by declaring a war on a tactic. Nor should a declaration of war leave the President free to take some actions because we're at war but other actions because we're not at war.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

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.

This couldn't be farther from the truth when discussing the economy, government spending, taxes, regulation, etc or any issue in which those who seek to reign in the power and growth of government itself is questioned and/or discouraged.

 

[Fern]

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.
-snip-

The AUMF passed Sept '01 is essentially a declaration of war by Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

Fern

 

[cwjerome]

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.

You can call it a "police action" if it makes you feel better, but the police are just one part of the complex equation that does include national intelligence agencies and the military, among others. You obviously have no idea how these things work if you believe the POTUS can pick a person at random and have them executed. Completely detached from reality, actually. I am sorry the Supreme Court has indeed defined the conflict and once someone in this conflict against us, the "enemy," is defined as a combatant, you can target them... citizenship or not. There is nothing new about this concept of killing the enemy.

 

[Fern]

I think technically we are at war, but you have a point. As a matter of principle Congress should draft clear declarations of war, including the words "We declare war on" and identifying the groups targeted. A declaration of war should not result in reasonable people debating whether we are at war, and if so with whom, and it should be on specific identifiable groups. If we're too politically correct to name the groups we're fighting, perhaps we're not quite ready to go to war and should not cover it up by declaring a war on a tactic. Nor should a declaration of war leave the President free to take some actions because we're at war but other actions because we're not at war.

We have used AUMF's since WWII.

An AUMF gives the President somewhat less power than a full blown declaration of war. In that regard, there may be some advantage in sticking with an AUMF.

Fern

 

[Fern]

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.
-snip-

Introducing the concept of "judicial review" creates Constitutional problems.

Either these enemy combatants are an imminent threat to the USA or they are not:

1. If not, (IMO) Obama has NO Constitutional authority for killing them. Moreover, it would be a clear violation of the Constitution were any drone strikes directed at a US citizen.

2. If they are, the President is authorized, and charged, by the Constitution to defend the USA. Accordingly, it would be unconstitutional for the Judicial Branch to interfere with the President's powers and responsibility.

Fern

 

[Wardawg1001]

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

Honest question. What secrets do you think the government is keeping that endanger millions of lives, and what would we (the population in general) gain from the government disclosing them?

I won't lie, I'm suspicious, I can think of relatively few instances in history of millions of people dying due to anything, let alone something that could be causally tied back to a government keeping secrets from its citizens. But I haven't exactly spent much time considering it, so I'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

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

So the answer is no. Got it.

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.

Do you even know what you are talking about? His son was killed like a week after he was killed in a totally separate targeted strike. How on earth is that collateral damage? Talk about clueless.

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

Like I said before...link to proof? Or is this all "unnamed sources claim..." BS?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

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.


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.

So you have no proof either. Got it. Glad you believe in faith-based assassinations.


So you and cwjerome are fine to let our government assassinate US citizens with no judicial oversight, and just trust everyone to "do the right thing". How very touching of you two.

Can a sell you a bridge New York, I promise it's legal, so that should be good enough for you two, right? I promise I wouldn't lie.

 

[cwjerome]

So the answer is no. Got it.

Do you even know what you are talking about? His son was killed like a week after he was killed in a totally separate targeted strike. How on earth is that collateral damage? Talk about clueless.

Like I said before...link to proof? Or is this all "unnamed sources claim..." BS?

Of course the answer is no, even if I did have the information you don't need to know. You act surprised that you haven't been granted access to top secret information.

From what I understand, his son was killed during an attack on another target. I guess when your father is a terrorist and you hang around other terrorists, you may get caught in the fire.

How can we link to "proof" there's been no trial nor should there be. There is only evidence... you can look on his wiki page for open source evidence and if you want TS evidence you're just SOL. Take it to the Supreme Court and tell them why you deserve to know.

 

[werepossum]

We have used AUMF's since WWII.

An AUMF gives the President somewhat less power than a full blown declaration of war. In that regard, there may be some advantage in sticking with an AUMF.

Fern

That is a point in their favor, I suppose. But an AUMF also gives the President the room to say to say I can do this because we're in a war, and I can do that because they aren't military EPW. I think a good compromise would be to require either a declaration of war, in which case we follow ALL rules of warfare, or to not have a declaration of war in which case we follow peacetime procedures. An AUMF strikes me as both the President and Congress attempting to eat their cake and have it too.

So you have no proof either. Got it. Glad you believe in faith-based assassinations.


So you and cwjerome are fine to let our government assassinate US citizens with no judicial oversight, and just trust everyone to "do the right thing". How very touching of you two.

Can a sell you a bridge New York, I promise it's legal, so that should be good enough for you two, right? I promise I wouldn't lie.

Isn't that the way with most of government activities? When a cop shoots a suspect, how often do I have the tools to decide for myself whether it was a good shoot? When the President decides to invade Iraq or topple the President of Libya, I can hear him make his case, but I have no way to examine the actual evidence and make a reasoned judgment. Adding a judge to the mix merely adds another government employee and moves my burden of faith to that government employee rather than the original government employee.

And no, you may not sell me a "bridge New York", it's a matter of earning trust.

 

[Zebo]

Obama is worse than Bush check this out
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html

Infinite detentions, more covert wars, dont even ask congress, permanent patriot act, kill lists and on and on. Liberals and media protect him.

I like this one the best

lead Ex-CIA interrogator: Obama's War on Terror Is Less Ethical Than Bush's. "We don't capture anybody any more... [Obama's] default option... has been to ... take no prisoners...How could it be more ethical to kill people rather than capture them?"

I have no idea why Republican hate him though. Dude is carrying Bush torch with even more vengeance. so you guys are just as bad with this anti-american african muslim commie stuff so I guess it balances out. Truth is lost in the middle and our republic erodes.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Of course the answer is no, even if I did have the information you don't need to know. You act surprised that you haven't been granted access to top secret information.

From what I understand, his son was killed during an attack on another target. I guess when your father is a terrorist and you hang around other terrorists, you may get caught in the fire.

How can we link to "proof" there's been no trial nor should there be. There is only evidence... you can look on his wiki page for open source evidence and if you want TS evidence you're just SOL. Take it to the Supreme Court and tell them why you deserve to know.

So again, you have no evidence, you are going on a faith-based assassination program. We got it. You don't care, you just trust that the President doesn't kill the wrong person. How very touching.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Isn't that the way with most of government activities? When a cop shoots a suspect, how often do I have the tools to decide for myself whether it was a good shoot? When the President decides to invade Iraq or topple the President of Libya, I can hear him make his case, but I have no way to examine the actual evidence and make a reasoned judgment. Adding a judge to the mix merely adds another government employee and moves my burden of faith to that government employee rather than the original government employee.

And no, you may not sell me a "bridge New York", it's a matter of earning trust.

A cop, at least in theory is help accountable in front a court of law. How can you not know that? He can't claim "National security" and just walk away with no investigation,l like is happening here.

So you blindly trust the President to only kill the "right" people, for his own definition of "right", but you won't trust him with taxes, the economy, or anything else. That really makes sense.

You should let me sell you a bridge, you are letting the President sell you a bill of goods with no more evidence then what I tell you.

 

[cwjerome]

So again, you have no evidence, you are going on a faith-based assassination program. We got it. You don't care, you just trust that the President doesn't kill the wrong person. How very touching.

You can call it faith based, I would not. Based on the evidence easily available on the internet, the dude was a terrorist icon and I am OK with calling him a combatant. As a combatant, his citizenship is virtually irrelevant. I also do place some trust into the people and mechanisms in place to properly use top secret information and act in a responsible manner. I have this minimum level of trust because I am an intelligence professional and I have a general understanding of the complexity involved. It's not as if the president opens a phone book and points to a name like you imply, there are a number of people and levels, horizontal and vertical, involved with enough oversight and overlap to catch potential abuse. As I said before these are not standardless or arbitrary activities. If I felt they were then I would be against it.

You can rage rage rage but so far your argument lacks anything that has stood up in court.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

You can call it faith based, I would not. Based on the evidence easily available on the internet, the dude was a terrorist icon and I am OK with calling him a combatant. As a combatant, his citizenship is virtually irrelevant. I also do place some trust into the people and mechanisms in place to properly use top secret information and act in a responsible manner. I have this minimum level of trust because I am an intelligence professional and I have a general understanding of the complexity involved. It's not as if the president opens a phone book and points to a name like you imply, there are a number of people and levels, horizontal and vertical, involved with enough oversight and overlap to catch potential abuse. As I said before these are not standardless or arbitrary activities. If I felt they were then I would be against it.

You can rage rage rage but so far your argument lacks anything that has stood up in court.

Once again, you believe the "it's secret and we can't tell you, but we know he's guilty" comments, without seeing any of the evidence yourself.

The government can't even tell us the exact process for for how you get on the assassination list, let alone tell us what evidence is being used (or even if there is evidence, as opposed to hearsay).

Need I remind you of the comments about the Gitmo detainees? How the government swore on a stack of bibles about how they "knew" all of them were guilty, and were the "worst of the worst"? And guess what happened when the documents actually found their way into the light? A lot were not guilty, and the government even knew they weren't guilty. Most were based on cash rewards and hearsay from random people. So you going to believe them now, when they willfully lied about that?

Now to me, I'd say the government has certainly shown that they lie often enough that I see now reason why anyone should trust them blindly with the power to kill any US citizen on a whim. Hell, they even lied and were wrong about his kids age....some intel huh? Really accurate if they messed that up.

But you can feel safe and secure that you really have no knowledge at all, and are taking this all on faith. Because as long as we kill brown people with weird names, you will be safe.