WH says "ethical" to kill Americans with UAVs

[lander]

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.
NBC News reported late Monday on an unclassified Department of Justice white paper on the use of drones against American citizens, like al Qaeda operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan.

What are you going to do when those UAV (they aren't drones folks) strikes occur within the US boundries against targets of the WH's choosing?

Hope for more change?

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by lander

What are you going to do when those UAV (they aren't drones folks) strikes occur within the US boundries against targets of the WH's choosing?

Hope for more change?

Start and finish the second AMERICAN REVOLUTION.....

hopefully......


the PROGRESSIVES simply need eliminating from face of the earth.....could care less how or who.....

[Joecooool]

False outrage over stupid bullshit that Bush initiated with no complaints from any of you at the time.

[Doug28450]

You missed the point, Phil. This is about the right to Due Process that every American Citizen has under the Constitution. Sadly, this administration has once again trampled on that document.

Mother Jones got it right. I guess you missed the memo.

Obama Targeted Killing Document: If We Do It, It's Not Illegal | Mother Jones

Obama Targeted Killing Document: If We Do It, It's Not Illegal
—By Adam Serwer| Tue Feb. 5, 2013 8:53 AM PST
175


If a high-ranking administration official does it, it's not illegal. At least not when we're talking about ordering the death of an American citizen the administration believes to be associated with Al Qaeda.

That's the conclusion of a Department of Justice "white paper" obtained by NBC's Michael Isikoff, who published it Monday night. The paper outlines the Obama administration's legal rationale for the targeted killing of US citizens suspected of terrorism abroad. Administration officials have previously defended such killings as lawful in public. But the white paper, which according to NBC was provided to members of the Senate intelligence and judiciary committees last June, lays out those arguments in greater detail.

The paper states that the US government can kill its own citizens overseas if:

(1) An informed, high level-official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.

(2) Capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and

(3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

This refers to all targeted killing—not just operations using drones, government officials could theoretically send assassins to hunt down suspected terrorists. The paper states that in order to be killed under this program, an individual must be part of Al Qaeda or its "associated forces." Al Qaeda's "associated forces" include groups such as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula that did not exist in 2001 but that the government nevertheless believes is covered by the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Although the administration has previously said that President Barack Obama makes the final call on targeted killing decisions involving Americans, based on recommendations from high-level national security officials, the white paper says that a decision of what it calls "extraordinary seriousness" need not involve the president—nor even multiple people. Instead, the paper argues, a single "high level-official," whose authority is undefined, can approve a death sentence for an American citizen as long as the target is too difficult for the US government to capture and the loss of civilian life that would result from a targeted killing is not deemed excessive.

When the paper says "imminent threat of violent attack against the United States," however, "imminent" means something other than what you might expect. All it means is that the executive branch of the US government must make a secret, unilateral determination that the person it wants to kill is a member of a terrorist organization: "The condition that an operational leader present an 'imminent' threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future," the paper notes. Not since the torture memos themselves have we seen such a bald defiance of what words actually mean. In the white paper, the government explains its broad definition of "imminent threat" by arguing that delaying a targeted killing "until preparations for an attack are concluded, would not allow the United States sufficient time to defend itself."

Since the administration's "kill list" is secret, those targeted have no opportunity to challenge their designation as terrorists who may be deprived of life by a "high level national security official." Nevertheless, the paper concludes, the Due Process Clause—the part of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that protects Americans from being deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"—"would not prohibit a lethal operation of the sort contemplated here."

The idea that a government official can rubber-stamp the killing of an American citizen echoes the conclusion of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in Hamdi that "due process requires nothing more than a good-faith executive determination." (Or as Stephen Colbert put it, "due process just means there's a process that you do.")

The Obama administration claims that the secret judgment of a single "well-informed high level administration official" meets the demands of due process and is sufficient justification to kill an American citizen suspected of working with terrorists. That procedure is entirely secret. Thus it's impossible to know which rules the administration has established to protect due process and to determine how closely those rules are followed. The government needs the approval of a judge to detain a suspected terrorist. To kill one, it need only give itself permission.

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

False outrage over stupid bullshit that Bush initiated with no complaints from any of you at the time.

Analagous to the Dem's outrage over the Iraq invasion after they voted for it.

[lander]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

Analagous to the Dem's outrage over the Iraq invasion after they voted for it.

\

Checking my calendar....nope, back when Bush was POTUS we weren't authorizing UAV's within the borders of the US.

Not a very bit leap from having them and having them armed, now is it there Mr. Cooooooooooool?


Funny how when presented with real, indisputable facts, the cry from the left is always "Well you guys started this atrocity" yet no call to end it. Ever.

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by lander

\

Checking my calendar....nope, back when Bush was POTUS we weren't authorizing UAV's within the borders of the US.

Not a very bit leap from having them and having them armed, now is it there Mr. Cooooooooooool?


Funny how when presented with real, indisputable facts, the cry from the left is always "Well you guys started this atrocity" yet no call to end it. Ever.

To be fair, the WH isn't trying to authorize strikes within the US. Just at US citizens abroad.

[Stangkiller]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

To be fair, the WH isn't trying to authorize strikes within the US. Just at US citizens abroad.

[lander]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

To be fair, the WH isn't trying to authorize strikes within the US. Just at US citizens abroad.

Correct, never indicated otherwise. But you can't strike within your borders with a UAV unless you have them flying within your borders. Now that they are, the ability now exists and they're justifing using it against US Citizens abroad.

You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to think it's a far leap to using them within our own borders agains US citizens (but it helps).

[Stangkiller]

Originally Posted by lander

Correct, never indicated otherwise. But you can't strike within your borders with a UAV unless you have them flying within your borders. Now that they are, the ability now exists and they're justifing using it against US Citizens abroad.

You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to think it's a far leap to using them within our own borders agains US citizens (but it helps).

I don't know that they have any armed UAV's flying in the US.

[lander]

Originally Posted by Stangkiller

I don't know that they have any armed UAV's flying in the US.

There aren't any tanks patrolling the streets either. But does that mean that there can't be?

I don't get your point. Just because the UAV's that are armed in the USA aren't currently in the skies doesn't mean they can't be within minutes.

I'm not a conspiracy nut by any means, my hats are made for golfing. But by convincing the populace at large that a UAV strike against an American citizen, regardless of where that American citizen is at, is justified and "ethical", is the first step that would need to be taken so that if a strike is made within the borders we are already in a position to accept it as "ethical".

I think being a US citizen should mean something, especially to the government.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by lander

Not a very bit leap from having them and having them armed, now is it there Mr. Cooooooooooool?

I think everyone can agree that this would be a massive fundamental change in the way we do business that would lead to riots in the streets.

So yea, it is a pretty gargantuan leap.

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

I think everyone can agree that this would be a massive fundamental change in the way we do business that would lead to riots in the streets.

So yea, it is a pretty gargantuan leap.

Gargantuan, yes. Can I see the current admin trying it? Yes. Have they done anything to that effect yet? Not that we know of.

[mrvette]

Turncoats give up citizenship automatically, running around loose in the middle east doing anti American bullshit is automatic death to ME, I have no issue with it.....

AND those drones?? started research under Kattah admin......I met a neighbor who was a development engineer for Navy in Crystal City just south of DC in Va. .....and so his outfit got moved to Lex Park.....

I asked him what he did, and he replied....'Played with model aircraft'....but being a tech head myself....I knew what, and did not ask......


rocket science 101, first course 10 grade high skool.....

[Bill]

Originally Posted by lander

There aren't any tanks patrolling the streets either. But does that mean that there can't be?

I don't get your point. Just because the UAV's that are armed in the USA aren't currently in the skies doesn't mean they can't be within minutes.

I'm not a conspiracy nut by any means, my hats are made for golfing. But by convincing the populace at large that a UAV strike against an American citizen, regardless of where that American citizen is at, is justified and "ethical", is the first step that would need to be taken so that if a strike is made within the borders we are already in a position to accept it as "ethical".

I think being a US citizen should mean something, especially to the government.

Tanks were used against the Branch Davidians in Waco. It's already been done. Not a big stretch for .gov to also unleash UAV's Against civilians.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by mrvette

Turncoats give up citizenship automatically, running around loose in the middle east doing anti American bullshit is automatic death to ME, I have no issue with it.....

AND those drones?? started research under Kattah admin......I met a neighbor who was a development engineer for Navy in Crystal City just south of DC in Va. .....and so his outfit got moved to Lex Park.....

I asked him what he did, and he replied....'Played with model aircraft'....but being a tech head myself....I knew what, and did not ask......


rocket science 101, first course 10 grade high skool.....

RONG! Turncoats (those who commit treason against the US) have to be convicted of that crime with the testimony of at least two witnesses. Until that time, they are just as innocent as you and I. Hassan, the Ft. hood shooter? He's innocent of his treason/workplace violence until he gets convicted after a fair and impartial trial.

[lander]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

RONG! Turncoats (those who commit treason against the US) have to be convicted of that crime with the testimony of at least two witnesses. Until that time, they are just as innocent as you and I. Hassan, the Ft. hood shooter? He's innocent of his treason/workplace violence until he gets convicted after a fair and impartial trial.

Exactly. As soon as you think it's "ethical" to assasinate a US citizen regardless of where he is without due process, then the biggest hurdle has been overcome.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

False outrage over stupid bullshit that Bush initiated with no complaints from any of you at the time.

And yet you seem to find no fault with the liberals who bitched nonstop about anything Bush did and now have absolutely no issue...

Funny how that works.


...and you are wrong (as usual). It doesn't matter 1 bit who is in office. I was against anything and everything that Bush did that infringed on the privacy of American citizens. I said so then and I will say so now. Unlike you, I don't blindly get down on my knees and accept something because of a (D) or an (R) following someone's name.

[lander]

Gosh...who was it that claimed that the then VP George H.W. Bush flew to Iran in a secret mission to get them to hold the hostages until after Reagon was sworn in?

[lander]

After stonewalling for more than a year federal judges and ordinary citizens who sought the revelation of its secret legal research justifying the presidential use of drones to kill persons overseas -- even Americans -- claiming the research was so sensitive and so secret that it could not be revealed without serious consequences, the government sent a summary of its legal memos to an NBC newsroom earlier this week.

This revelation will come as a great surprise, and not a little annoyance, to U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon, who heard many hours of oral argument during which the government predicted gloom and doom if its legal research were subjected to public scrutiny. She very reluctantly agreed with the feds, but told them she felt caught in “a veritable Catch-22,” because the feds have created “a 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 reasons for their conclusion a secret.”

She was writing about President Obama killing Americans and refusing to divulge the legal basis for claiming the right to do so. Now we know that basis.

The undated and unsigned 16-page document leaked to NBC refers to itself as a Department of Justice white paper. Its logic is flawed, its premises are bereft of any appreciation for the values of the Declaration of Independence and the supremacy of the Constitution, and its rationale could be used to justify any breaking of any law by any “informed, high-level official of the U.S. government.”

The quoted phrase is extracted from the memo, which claims that the law reposes into the hands of any unnamed “high-level official,” not necessarily the president, the lawful power to decide when to suspend constitutional protections guaranteed to all persons and kill them without any due process whatsoever. This is the power claimed by kings and tyrants. It is the power most repugnant to American values. It is the power we have arguably fought countless wars to prevent from arriving here. Now, under Obama, it is here.

This came to a boiling point when Obama dispatched CIA drones to kill New Mexico-born and Al Qaeda-affiliated Anwar al-Awlaki while he was riding in a car in a desert in Yemen in September 2011. A follow-up drone, also dispatched by Obama, killed Awlaki’s 16-year-old Colorado-born son and his American friend.

Awlaki’s American father sued the president in federal court in Washington, D.C., trying to prevent the killing. Justice Department lawyers persuaded a judge that the president always follows the law, and besides, without any evidence of presidential law breaking, the elder Awlaki had no case against the president. Within three months of that ruling, the president dispatched his drones and the Awlakis were dead. This spawned follow-up lawsuits, in one of which McMahon gave her reluctant ruling.

Then the white paper appeared. It claims that if an American is likely to trigger the use of force 10,000 miles from here, and he can’t easily be arrested, he can be murdered with impunity. This notwithstanding state and federal laws that expressly prohibit non-judicial killing, an executive order signed by every president from Gerald Ford to Obama prohibiting American officials from participating in assassinations, the absence of a declaration of war against Yemen, treaties expressly prohibiting this type of killing, and the language of the Declaration, which guarantees the right to live, and the Constitution, which requires a jury trial before the government can deny that right.

The president cannot lawfully order the killing of anyone, except according to the Constitution and federal law. Under the Constitution, he can only order killing using the military when the U.S. has been attacked or when an attack is so imminent that delay would cost innocent lives. He can also order killing using the military in pursuit of a declaration of war enacted by Congress.

Unless Obama knows that an attack from Yemen on our shores is imminent, he’d be hard-pressed to argue that a guy in a car in the desert 10,000 miles from here -- no matter his intentions -- poses a threat so imminent to the U.S. that he needs to be killed on the spot in order to save the lives of Americans who would surely die during the time it would take to declare war on the country that harbors him, or during the time it would take to arrest him. Under no lawful circumstances may he use CIA agents for killing. Surely, CIA agents can use deadly force defensively to protect themselves and their assets, but they may not use it offensively. Federal laws against murder apply to the president and to all federal agents and personnel in their official capacities, wherever they go on the planet.

Obama has argued that he can kill Americans whose deaths he believes will keep us all safer, without any due process whatsoever. No law authorizes that. His attorney general has argued that the president’s careful consideration of each target and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. No court has ever approved that. And his national security adviser has argued that the use of drones is humane since they are “surgical” and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect, as the folks who monitor all this say that 11 percent to 17 percent of the 2,300 drone-caused deaths have been those of innocent bystanders.

Did you consent to a government that can kill whom it wishes? How about one that plays tricks on federal judges? How long will it be before the presidential killing comes home?

Read more: President Obama gives himself permission to kill | Fox News