Here’s an issue on which most of us can hopefully agree: we ought to summarily reject the supposed authority of the President of the United States to unilaterally authorize the murder of pretty much anyone he chooses anywhere in the world, American citizen or not, imminent threat or not. I didn’t like the Imperial Presidency under Bush, I don’t like it under Obama, and I won’t like it under the leadership of any future presidents either. (A court ruling about making this memo public was classic, with the judge throwing up her hands and referring both to “Alice in Wonderland” and “Catch-22″.)
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16855539-judge-jury-and-executioner-legal-experts-fear-implications-of-white-house-drone-memo?lite
Don’t worry, you still have cable TV.
thanks for the reminder, DADvocate–can I watch the drone strikes live on cable?
“But while you swelter. Down there in your shelter. You can see me. On your TV.”
To give the kind of non-serious response you prefer to give, nobody really cares. He’s the CIC, he was elected by you compatriots even though he killed 3 American citizens via drones. From your little bio, I’d assume you voted for the guy. Did you? He’s doing the job he was elected to do and this isn’t something we didn’t know about. Next, you’ll be complaining he about the drone base he established in north Africa.
Don’t blame me, I voted Green. Hell, I’m seriously thinking about running for office as a Greenie.
I respect your vote a great deal. I’ve voted 3rd party several times, usually Libertarian, but once for some party I can’t remember for sure. It may have been Green,. I’ve always respected Ralph Nader.
DADvocate–you’re saying that my reply (2 above) was less serious than yours (1 above)? Yep, I voted for President Obama (damn it, there goes my secret ballot!), in spite of knowing his drone warfare policy and his assertion of executive powers with which I don’t agree. He largely inherited those powers from Bush, who inherited them from Clinton (I didn’t care for Clinton’s use of missile strikes, either), etc. The Imperial Presidency did not start with Barack Obama and, sadly, it’s not likely to end with him, either; it’s been commonly observed that no President willingly surrenders powers that he finds available when he takes office–which is why we need to find ways to take them away through legislative oversight or judicial review. I voted for Obama despite some of his policies and because I believed he was a better alternative than Romney, not because I’m a member of some Obama cult who believes that Dear Leader can do no wrong. The idea that we can’t complain about someone’s policies if we voted for the person strikes me as off-base. A vote isn’t a blank check or a sweeping approval of everything the candidate does, has done, or ever will do; it’s a considered choice between whatever alternatives exist. And yes, I’ll complain about the drone base in North Africa, like I did about the pointless “surge” in an already pointless war in Afghanistan. It may be the case that Republicans/conservatives/whatever like to circle the wagons and show a united front on every issue–though that strategy is showing some wear & tear–but that’s not my inclination; I feel perfectly free to criticize people on my own side of the partisan divide (don’t get me started about Harry Reid), even when I voted for them. Serious enough for you?
Gawd. Still blaming Bush. Yeah, ol’ W’s back there forcing Obama to assert executive powers. Puhleese. We might as well be blaming Richard Nixon, who also had an imperial presidency. It’s about time for the Obamaites to take responsibility for their actions. I prefer to vote for provably highly intelligent condescending rich guys who have a track record of success.
Here’s a new story about Obama killing Salem Ahmed bin Ali Jaber two days after he had spoken out against Al Queda, “just the kind of leader most crucial to American efforts to eradicate Al Qaeda”, with drones. It’s so nice to have a Nobel Peace Prize winner for president.
DADvocate: I did not blame Bush. Puhleese yourself. The whole point of my post was to register my disapproval of Obama’s actions, and of course to invite comments; there are in fact people who defend what he’s doing, and I thought it might be worth discussing. You’re right that I could have traced the imperial Presidency back further than I did (I stopped, please note, at Clinton, not at Bush); but that’s a matter of citing history, not of “blaming” anyone. Barack Obama is responsible for the decisions he makes as CIC, and I never said otherwise.
I am not happy with this either. My preference would be that Congress take this on directly rather than abdicate it to the POTUS. I think our laws have been inadequate to address the problem. People are able and willing to a degree not seen in the past to cause harm from afar and to remain hidden. I dont really think someone should be able to plan, train and organize for killings in the safety of another country which will protect them. OTOH, I don’t think people should be killed just because they are members of a hostile organization. I am partial to the idea of specials courts that can try these people in absentia. The bar should be set pretty high for capital punishment.
Steve
Slate on when defendants can be tried in absentia: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/06/when_can_a_defendant_be_tried_in_absentia.html
It doesn’t seem as if the circumstances currently cover the case where the defendant was never around to be detained due to being in the wilderness in another country plotting terrorist attacks: “As for a fugitive who has never been in custody, such as Osama Bin Laden, odds are slim to none that any U.S. court would permit his trial in absentia, regardless of the strength of the evidence.” At the same time, trial in absentia in special cases does seem *less* at odds with notions of due process than being placed on a secret kill list in such special cases. Particularly if the kill list can extend, not just to someone like Osama Bin Laden (whose death could plausibly be argued to be the same sort of case as the killing of Admiral Yamamoto – killing someone actively leading an enemy force in a field of battle following Congress authorizing a war against precisely that force), but to anyone who’s a member of any organization that the President judges to be sufficiently affiliated with Al Qaeda.
It seems like such a hazy area to me that it would be better if we had it spelled out in a specific law. I concede that might still be seen as an over reach by the executive branch, but it could trigger a SCOTUS ruling.
Steve
Congress getting involved would at least mean that it would have been publicly debated. And it seems to me that the scope of the Authorization to Use Military Force, back in 2001, has been significantly stretched in this memo.
Whatever happened to the congressional power to declare war?
So, we’re all headed for a humanist paradise with global gender equality, but we’ve got to create a technocratic, mommy/daddy State in the meantime and continue most of Bush’s terror policies while adding a few more?
That’s logically consistent.
Let’s gut the military budget while we’re at it.
Not only would I like to see Congress address this, I’d also like Congress to get back into the habit of actually declaring a State of War before the US commits troops overseas.
I’d also like a pony.
I also believe Congress needs to assert its oversight powers and reclaim its authority to declare war. The use of drones is primarily designed to limit American casualties, which is a worthy goal, but not when it’s extended to arbitrarily killing people–American citizens or not–suspected of maybe planning something bad sometime in the future, or even suspected of maybe having been involved with doing something bad in the past. We’ve made the whole world into a battlefield where we can launch attacks any time we choose, and where our President is judge, jury, and executioner. If any other country in the world was doing this sort of thing, we’d be outraged; it can’t be right just because it’s America that’s doing it.