Weekly Ad: See Best Buy's new Digital Weekly Ad here! See Deals
Forum Thread

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich take on White House over legality of drone strikes

NotEasyBeingSavage 7,778 21 November 29, 2012 at 01:12 PM
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich take on White House over legality of drone strikes

Quote :
Democratic Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Republican Texas Rep. Ron Paul and Democratic New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt Jr. are challenging the Obama administration to release documents it uses to legally justify drone strikes overseas.

If passed by Congress, their "resolution of inquiry" would require Attorney General Eric Holder to "transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, any documents and legal memoranda in the Attorney General's possession relating to the practice of targeted killing of United States citizens and targets abroad."

In a statement released on Wednesday, Kucinich said national security concerns do not justify unconstitutional measures.

"We must reject the notion that protecting our national security requires revoking the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. No president can act as judge, jury and executioner, and any attempt to do so is in direct violation of our Constitution, which gives our citizens a right to life and a fair trial," Kucinich said.

"According to a memorandum prepared by the White House Office of Legal Counsel, when the United States conducts such an attack it is legal. The Congress and the American people have a right to know this legal framework. Congress has an obligation as the sole authority under the Constitution to declare war to know how the use of force abroad is being used, especially against U.S. citizens."
This is great news in terms of protecting our civil rights. Hopefully we will get a full answer on the legal justification of targeting Americans instead of the song and dance we typically get. To paraphrase Leon Panetta: They are terrorists first, and Americans second. The President decides what is legal.

270 Comments

14 15 16 17 18

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2008
Temporarily Banned
13,391 Posts
180 Reputation
#226
Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
That's a low bar and I think he's cleared it.
Please tell us more on this.

What exactly has he done to live up to his promise of being the most transparent administration?
What makes them transparent in your mind?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2010
L11: My Level Goes to 11
7,778 Posts
21 Reputation
Original Poster
#227
Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
Not those who join (or conspire with) the enemy to kill Americans.

In any case, the courts will decide and I'm betting they'll decide against your position.
No need to bet. The courts rejected the applicable case to avoid making a decision.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
If I appear to be ignoring your posts, it's probably because you are on my ignore list.

Xuéxi zhōngwén
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2008
Temporarily Banned
13,391 Posts
180 Reputation
#228
Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
In reality, Democrats also blocked the closing of Gitmo. Wink
Well that's a bit hypocritical seeing that they railed against Bush for keeping Gitmo open.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2008
Knowledge is power
6,498 Posts
1,745 Reputation
#229
Quote from 124nic8 View Post :

only those that comply with state laws; the vast majority of which do not.


That's a low bar and I think he's cleared it.

What do you have to support these statements?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Click here to feed a hungry animal! [theanimalrescuesite.com]

It is well enough that the people of this nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. -Henry Ford
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2008
Permanently Banned
23,118 Posts
462 Reputation
#230
Quote from joer316 View Post :
What do you have to support these statements?
Reports that I have read.

What do you have that disputes them?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2010
L11: My Level Goes to 11
7,778 Posts
21 Reputation
Original Poster
#231
Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
Reports that I have read.

What do you have that disputes them?
How are Americans put on a kill list without judicial review? I'll start with that one.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2008
Permanently Banned
23,118 Posts
462 Reputation
#232
Quote from Xygonn View Post :
How are Americans put on a kill list without judicial review? I'll start with that one.
You want written delineation of the process?

AFAIK, military battle strategy has never been publicly available information.

That's below the low bar.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2008
Knowledge is power
6,498 Posts
1,745 Reputation
#233
Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
Reports that I have read.
please link to them
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2010
L11: My Level Goes to 11
7,778 Posts
21 Reputation
Original Poster
#234
Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
You want written delineation of the process?

AFAIK, military battle strategy has never been publicly available information.

That's below the low bar.
Something beyond what Panetta gave us, that the President ultimately decides what is legal or not. They have admitted to not having a well drawn out process and shelving the procedure development upon winning the election. That's doubly opaque. Once for saying "we just do it magically" and again by saying "we should be able to do it magically but we would have put in a procedure for the next guy".

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/...port-card/

Quote :
Last year, the Department of Justice set up an FOIA scorecard website, FOIA.gov. According to information on this site, about 40 percent of requests from 2008-2011 were honored, about a quarter were partially granted, almost 5 percent were denied by exemption, and over a third were fully denied without an exemption.

Exemptions are for national security and related issues. Those exemptions, over 450,000 last year, showed a 50 percent increase from the last year of the Bush presidency. Of last year's exemptions, about 232,000 came from Homeland Security.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2008
Permanently Banned
23,118 Posts
462 Reputation
#235
Quote from Xygonn View Post :
Something beyond what Panetta gave us, that the President ultimately decides what is legal or not. They have admitted to not having a well drawn out process and shelving the procedure development upon winning the election. That's doubly opaque. Once for saying "we just do it magically" and again by saying "we should be able to do it magically but we would have put in a procedure for the next guy".

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/...port-card/
FOIA scorecard website, FOIA.gov FTW! Stick Out Tongue
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2010
L11: My Level Goes to 11
7,778 Posts
21 Reputation
Original Poster
#236
Speaking of energy independence:

http://www.sfgate.com/business/bl...116501.php
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2008
Knowledge is power
6,498 Posts
1,745 Reputation
#237
nod still waiting on a link to these "reports" he's read...
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#238
Quote from OhNoItsDEVO View Post :
Well that's a bit hypocritical seeing that they railed against Bush for keeping Gitmo open.
In retrospect that was a convenient path to votes, wasn't it?

But indefinite detention is the real issue -- Gitmo is just a location. And here the president clearly demonstrated his position, as he persistently defended indefinite detention against all legal challenges.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2008
Knowledge is power
6,498 Posts
1,745 Reputation
#239
Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
Reports that I have read.
Quote from joer316 View Post :
nod still waiting on a link to these "reports" he's read...
I thought as much...nic has nothing to support those statements
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by joer316 December 15, 2012 at 02:13 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2010
L11: My Level Goes to 11
7,778 Posts
21 Reputation
Original Poster
#240
White House wins fight to keep drone killings of Americans secret

Quote :
A federal judge issued a 75-page ruling on Wednesday that declares that the US Justice Department does not have a legal obligation to explain the rationale behind killing Americans with targeted drone strikes.
United States District Court Judge Colleen McMahon wrote in her finding this week that the Obama administration was largely in the right by rejecting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times for materials pertaining to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to execute three US citizens abroad in late 2011 [pdf].
Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both US nationals with alleged ties to al-Qaeda, were killed on September 30 of that year using drone aircraft; days later, al-Awlaki's teenage son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was executed in the same manner. Although the Obama administration has remained largely quiet about the killings in the year since, a handful of statements made from senior White House officials, including Pres. Barack Obama himself, have provided some but little insight into the Executive Branch's insistence that the killings were all justified and constitutionally-sound. Attempts from the ACLU and the Times via FOIA requests to find out more have been unfruitful, though, which spawned a federal lawsuit that has only now been decided in court.
Siding with the defendants in what can easily be considered as cloaked in skepticism, Judge McMahon writes that the Obama White House has been correct in refusing the FOIA requests filed by the plaintiffs.
"There are indeed legitimate reasons, historical and legal, to question the legality of killings unilaterally authorized by the Executive that take place otherwise than on a 'hot' field of battle," McMahon writes in her ruling. Because her decision must only weigh whether or not the Obama administration has been right in rejecting the FOIA requests, though, her ruling cannot take into consideration what sort of questions — be it historical, legal, ethical or moral — are raised by the ongoing practice of using remote-controlled drones to kill insurgents and, in these instances, US citizens.
"The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules — a veritable Catch-22," she writes. "I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reason for their conclusion a secret."
http://rt.com/usa/news/drone-kill...obama-245/

Also:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Poli...ne-strikes

Quote :
President Obama's nomination Monday of John Brennan, the architect of his drone war, to head the CIA suggests the deadly but controversial counterterrorism approach will not just continue but perhaps even expand.

Mr. Brennan, a former CIA officer who has served as Mr. Obama's counterterrorism adviser for four years, has overseen a broad expansion of the use of drones to carry out targeted killings in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. In fact, it was Brennan who first publicly acknowledged the Obama administration's drone war, calling the strikes "legal, ethical, and wise" as a means of deterring terrorist attacks.

Under Obama, more than 300 drone strikes have reportedly killed more than 2,500 people – many of them Al Qaeda leaders or other dangerous terrorists, according to the US government. But critics of the program say the attacks breed deeper resentment against the US, target uncharged suspects, and are unethical because they often result in civilian casualties – a claim Brennan has refuted
So expect more, not fewer, drone strikes.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by NotEasyBeingSavage January 7, 2013 at 04:23 PM.
Page 16 of 19
14 15 16 17 18
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2018. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard