From the Obama Administration’s newly-uncovered memo on when the President is allowed to order Americans assassinated:
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 and interests will take place in the immediate future.
If there isn’t an attack that will happen in the immediate future, then there’s no legitimate reason not to have the assassination require a judge to review the reasons and sign off, at the very least. (That should be the case for all people targeted for such killings, not just for Americans.) What the Obama Administration wants – and what I expect that both Congress and the press will give, with resistance from only a few Ron-Wyden-like outliers – is absolute, dictatorial authority over life and death. This is corrupt, evil, and will inevitably be abused.
The most shameful thing is that politically, there is only one side on this issue. Pathetically, this is the one and only issue on which the GOP has decided not to question or resist Obama (affordable health care for Americans: Horrible! Fascist! Giving the White House the power to have Americans killed without charge or trial: meh.), so we’re stuck with a two-party system in which neither party’s center objects to the President having a secret, completely unchecked kill list.
Glenn Greenwald writes:
What has made these actions all the more radical is the absolute secrecy with which Obama has draped all of this. Not only is the entire process carried out solely within the Executive branch – with no checks or oversight of any kind – but there is zero transparency and zero accountability. The president’s underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president – at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as “Terror Tuesday” – then chooses from “baseball cards” and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man, and those powers are exercised in the dark.
From Outside the Beltway:
Whoever ends up succeeding Barack Obama in January 2017, will continue to assert that they too have the authority to target people for killing based on secret proceedings using secret evidence and conducted wholly outside public view, of that there is no doubt. As we have so often done in the past in the area of Presidential powers, we’re going down a very dangerous road here and there’s no telling where it’s going to end.
Conor Friedersdorf. brings up an important point: This memo was uncovered by NBC, rather than being released. Why? Because the Obama Administration prefers to avoid accountability.
On reading the unredacted document, ask yourself, “Why wasn’t this released to the public by the Obama Administration? Which part of its legal reasoning could jeopardize national security in any way? Since it reveals no national security secrets, what possible justification could there be for willfully keeping its contents from Americans, who have a compelling interest in understanding, scrutinizing and debating the legal framework that surrounds extrajudicial killing?
There’s got to be a better system than one that gives us a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee on issues like extrajudicial killings.
Via Jonathan Turley.
Pingback: Obama’s Kill Lists | Clarissa's Blog
There is some accountability. If anyone is actually killed, people can bring a court case arguing it was unlawful. That’s the norm for most military action – some bombing are pre-vetted but normally the military is given enormous freedom to act, without prior restraint.
Curious.
Consider: Who do we have to thank for many of the limitations on executive prerogatives? Richard Nixon. Nice, functional executives do us a disservice by lulling us into a false sense of security. We need the occasional abusive executive to keep us on our guard.
Now, I have long fantasized about what I would do as President – and how I might make a contribution to democracy that could in some small fashion rival the efforts of Tricky Dick. In one variant on this theme, I asked Congress to outlaw Guantanamo and other secret prisons, and to make the prohibitions on domestic eavesdropping effective. The gridlocked Congress did nothing. So I then started exercising my executive prerogatives: Once a day I’d pick some member of a Congressman’s family to “disappear,” and I’d release some embarrassing bit of info I’d managed to collect through putatively legal eavesdropping. Eventually, snarling and broiling mad, Congress rose up with vengeance to pass iron-clad laws clamping down on my abuses. And then I happily released the prisoners and apologized for the embarrassing disclosures. And, in my fantasy, the bulk of the public LOVED my ability to abuse Congress in this fashion. Or any fashion. The more abuse, the better.
Ok, that last part probably isn’t just fantasy.
Anyway, here we are, with an executive memo that has been “leaked” putatively authorizing unbridled abuses in the name of national security. Could it possibly be that Obama’s actually trying to provoke the very resistance that Amp says won’t arise? Could he be trying to lure the Tea Party wing of the Republicans into adopting a contrary stand to whatever the Obama Administration pursues, and drag the rest of the Republican establishment with them?
Imagine that, a month from now, we see Obama standing, tail between his legs, acknowledging that this darned memo – “I don’t know who wrote that thing” – went entirely too far. And to ensure such a thing can never happen again, he now felt compelled to sign the Stop Obama Tyranny for the Love of God Act of 2013.
Yeah, his tail is between his legs – but it’s wagging a little….
Yeah, Obama-worshipping white liberals keep kicking out fantasies about how his latest power-hungry asshole behavior is really some incredibly brilliant super-liberal plan.
No. He’s just a power-hungry asshole.
Holy crap that’s freaking horrifying. And no, I don’t buy the “ploy to get Republicans to actually limit executive power” explanation.
I think you’ve pasted the Greenwald quote in twice.
[Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed! –Amp]
What surprises me is that this surprises any of you.
I wouldn’t say I’m surprised – this is Obama year five, after all. And if Clinton and Carter taught me anything, it’s low expectations. But just because I’m unsurprised is no reason not to be pissed off.
This from a guy who ran against Bush on the basis that waterboarding someone was immoral. Of course, then he was trying to win an election, so the actual morality didn’t matter, just that he could inspire his base by calling it that.
So you’re pissed off, Amp. Good. Justifiably so. Now – how pissed off is everyone else? Are Code Pink and the rest going to start picketing the White House, burning President Obama in effigy and demanding that he stand trial for war crimes? Or are they going to say “Oh, but he’s our guy” and stay home? Orwellian double-speak can include speaking at one point but not speaking at all at some other point.
Ron, Code Pink is already on it. As for “the rest” – meaning, I think, leftist and Democrats who objected to similar war on terror assaults on civil rights during the Bush years – some of them have been objecting, and some of them have acted like the partisan hypocrites they are.
(Surely this doesn’t surprise you; and surely you don’t think that there are no partisan hypocrites among conservatives, as well.)
By the way, Ron, when it comes to objecting to Obama using drones to kill Americans, the establishment and left-wing press has been significantly better than the conservative press.
“the establishment and left-wing press has been significantly better than the conservative press.”
That’s because you’re a bunch of racists who don’t want to see a black president win a war.
It’s because we actually believe this is morally abhorrent, and aren’t just bringing it up to score cheap partisan points.
See also: torture.
—Myca
When did our precious Amp – author of children’s books, no less – grow so cynical? He’s starting to remind me of David Weigel:
Here’s one reason why drone warfare and targeted killing don’t really get discussed in Washington unless there’s a memo leak or a protest: There’s bipartisan consensus to whistle awkwardly and let the system continue. At John Boehner’s weekly press conference, PRI’s Todd Zwillich asked whether the most powerful Republican in the country, a “constitutional officer,” had any concerns about targeted killing. After all, Congress could hold hearings. Congress could cut funding.
“[House Intelligence Committee] Chairman Mike Rogers put out a statement yesterday,” said Boehner, “and I agree with that statement.”
He didn’t quote the statement, but what Rogers said yesterday was that targeted killing of American citizens was a “lawful act of national self-defense.” Via the AP:
In general, Republicans agreed with the legal theories behind all this when George W. Bush was president. They agree with the theories now. They might call for more transparency, as Sen. John Cornyn is doing, but they don’t do so because they question the basis for the attacks.
It’s because we actually believe this is morally abhorrent, and aren’t just bringing it up to score cheap partisan points.
See also: torture.
You believe it’s so morally abhorrent that since it’s going to be done anyway, let’s make sure it’s a Democrat doing it so that there’s no by-party split on the issue? As nobody.really notes, Republicans (at least some Republicans) might have quibbles with implementation but are OK with a fairly nasty national security state.
In fairness, this is a criticism that doesn’t apply to genuine left-wingers who snort with contempt at Obama and who voted for small-party candidates, even if they lived in a swing state. I have some friends in this category; I respect the intensity of their convictions.
But for softer lefties or just ordinary Democrats, this isn’t a reason that make you guys look non-morally-crazy. Democrats worked hard for the President. They busted ass and carried water. You do that for someone with whom you maybe disagree on some issues but who on the core principles is right with you. You don’t do that for someone who – to allude to our earlier conversation – is doing Hitler shit. If this national security state is Hitler shit (I waver back and forth, but any exercise of state power has the potential to turn into Hitler shit very easily, so I’m not a hard guy to sell) then the moral calculus I’ve seen Amp and other lefties deploy (‘Obama isn’t perfect but the best we have, health care reform, Republicans kill dogs’) isn’t pragmatic, it’s appalling.
I see three possibilities.
1) It isn’t really Hitler shit.
2) It is, and the Democrats are for it regardless of what some of their more sentimental mouthpieces may blog about.
3) It is, and the Democrats are against it regardless of what some of their less principled mouthpieces may campaign on.
Which is it? Because if it’s 2, then it becomes the job of the sentimental mouthpieces (hi, Barry!) to start *actively working against Hitler*, not decrying how awful the Nuremberg laws are but gee I sure do love these highways.
Parties and movements have to police their own. I don’t want to hear “but you guys don’t do it” – say what you will about Ron Paul (I say he’s an egomaniac) and his ilk, there was a populist revolt among the conservative movement over the war and the related national security state issues. The good guys lost the war, but the war was held.
If Obama is being Hitler, then it’s you guys’ and gals’ job to knock him out. Ron’s critique may be snarky, but it’s on-target. If this shit is that evil, then a lot of partisan Democrats are hugely compromised by their non-revolt.
Robert, I fail to see any logic at all in what you say.
Which doesn’t mean that there isn’t logic there. Just that you fail to spell out whatever argument you were thinking of. So please do spell it out.
As I see it, when it comes to presidential elections, I have four choices:
1) The Democrat, who will pursue a mix of good (health care, gay rights) and horrible (drone strikes) policies, and who might if circumstances are right do some good (global warming), but who in virtually no policy area will be worse than the Republican.
2) The Republican, who will pursue the same horrible policies as the Democrat (drone strikes), plus many other horrible policies (health care, reducing the black vote, defunding essential medical assistance to 3rd world women, etc) that will lead to thousands of people dying who might otherwise live, but whose good policies will be much, much rarer than the Democrat, and in no cases favors a good policy that his Democratic counterpart would oppose.
3) 3rd Party candidate, who will not be relevant; will not win, and will not alter the policies of either party that will win, nor will create any reforms that will lead future elections to have better choices. Has virtually no chance of ever changing anything.
4) The Weathermen option. See option #3, plus add on the harms of violence and prison time.
In this circumstance, you say that the moral calculus that says I should go with option #1 is appalling. I agree that it’s appalling that these are the choices I have; but given those choices, I disagree that my choice to support the Democrat is appalling.
You say it is, but I fail to see any argument in what you wrote. So please spell out the argument.
P.S. Response time will be slow, as I’m going to spend most of tomorrow on planes.
But we don’t know if the targeted people have joined al-Qaida or not. We just know that the President says that they have. Should he really be able to have people killed based on nothing more than his say-so that they’re al-Qaida?
To know with more certainty, we need oversight – meaning, ideally, some sort of trial (including someone arguing for the defense). But at the very least, a judge should be required to look at the evidence and determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before an execution order is, er, executed.
By the way, I don’t believe that working for change is hopeless. I think it’s possible, although unlikely, that real long-term change can be made by trying to change who is elected to the Democratic party, by supporting reformist Democrats like Wyden, supporting leftist candidates locally, etc.. There’s also a lot of non-electorial change to be done.
But looking at things that way is broader than the question Robert (I think) brings up, which is what to do with your vote in the Presidential election.
I think that your position makes perfect sense for the ordinary of political questions, Amp. Let me clarify what I mean:
Say that both the Democratic and Republican candidates advocated a policy of random child murder and cannibalism, on a massive scale. A million babies a year, to be chosen and eaten at random.
Obviously, this is horrific. I couldn’t support anybody who pursued this policy, no matter what we agreed on otherwise. I’d have to go with option 3 or option 4; feckless or personally dangerous they may be, but I could sleep at night. Going with 1 or 2 would HAVE TO MEAN that I was, basically, OK with the baby-murder-cannibal agenda. Cannibal baby murdering isn’t something that can be put to one side as a simple policy difference.
Make sense?
OK. If the drone thing and the “I say he’s Al Qaida, boom!” thing are as hugely monstrous as you guys on the left say (with some few on the right agreeing), then that’s a lot more like the cannibal-murder-baby policy, than the ‘4.2% tire excise tax for highway funding’ policy. If it’s as bad as you say it is, I don’t understand why you aren’t either throwing your vote away to the Green Party or blowing up Congress. Going with the lesser of two evils is OK when the choice is Dewey vs. Truman; when its Hitler vs. Cthulhu, I wonder why you’re not in the resistance instead.
As a logical argument? No, makes no sense at all.
Candidate A will kill a billion babies. Candidate B will kill only a half-billion babies. Candidate C has no chance, and neither does the Weatherman option. Furthermore, the race between A and B is fairly close.
In this circumstance, I say support candidate B, because that means a half-billion fewer babies dead. You say support C or D, because they’re useless and maybe A will wind up winning and doing even more damage than B, but at least that way you’ll be able to sleep at night. With all due respect, I think you’ve vastly overestimated the value of your beauty sleep.
(Posted from Phoenix airport.)
I’m not responsible for alternative hypotheses and what maybe would have happened; I’m responsible for what I choose. In post-1940 France, the rational choices were supporting the Germans directly versus supporting the Germans via the Vichy government. Joining the Resistance was the ‘option C or D’ of the time. You had to be an idiot.
On the other hand, as it turned out, everyone who chose one of the rational options was a fucking Nazi dirtbag. And sadly, apparently, come the day when you have to make such a choice IRL instead of just in silly blog chats, you’re going to end up being a baby murdering cannibal.
Under your way of thinking, what person would ever become a freedom fighter, or strike against injustice, or take a stand? There is always a plausible alternative hypothesis, where things go worse for you, for the people you love, for your community, if you take the action or take the stand.
In post-1940 France, although joining the resistance was incredibly dangerous, it was not ridiculous to believe that the resistance was genuinely increasing the odds of the Nazis losing the war. That’s not at all comparable to the situation of an American taking up violent arms against the U.S. today to protest Obama’s drone policy.
If the government really were to put forward a campaign of widespread baby-eating in real life, there would be a massive resistance, and it would make sense to look for it, encourage it to begin, and if it’s already begun join it. I don’t believe the same is true of Obama’s kill list, alas.
It’s also not comparable because Obama’s policy is simultaneously genuinely horrible, and not nearly as bad as Hitler, a level of badness your analysis forces us to ignore. By dividing all policy into two categories – “cannibal-murder-baby policy” vs “4.2% tire excise tax” – you’re trying to set up a situation where either all policy is either trivial or Hitler. But in the real world, a policy can be a million times less bad that the Holocaust and still be horrible; an analysis that ignores this reality is idiotic.
You’re just crabby because you know all that baby meat is going to make you fat, and not in a healthy-at-any-size way.
Yes, of course there’s middle ground and of course I’m ignoring it, more for simplicity of presentation of the idea, than from my conspiratorial plan to make everything into Hitler vs. tire excise tax. Obviously there’s some threshold value, which probably varies by individual and is partially dependent on context; even baby-eating Hitlerians like yourself, I am sure, will cop to giving people who are “on their side” more slack.
I am not seeing why either third-party candidacies or violent revolution (God forbid) are in the impossibility category in a way that the French resistance wasn’t. OK, in 1945 I will grant you that joining the Resistance was not particularly a sign of epic courage – but France vs. Nazi Germany in the immediate aftermath looked just as formidable as the current two-party grip on the American electoral system, or the present incumbency of the imperial presidency. We’ve had TWO major revolutions against perceived-as-tyrannical governments in this country before; we won one, they lost the other. And I believe it’s three or four times that formerly sliver parties have ousted one of the big players and taken its place on the stage.
And nobody will shoot you for voting Green, either.
No one will shoot me for voting Green (nor did I mention anything like that, btw – this is a total straw man argument on your part).
But the last time I really strongly supported Green in a presidential election – going to rallies, donating all I could, volunteering to hand out campaign information, etc – was Bush v Gore. And although I don’t hold the Greens solely responsible for Bush’s win – bad actors on the GOP side and Gore’s tactical missteps and eagerness to sleep well at night had a lot to do with it as well – we Greens were certainly partly responsible.
Although that election didn’t have any bad outcomes for me or most other Nader supporters, it did plausibly lead to 9/11, and with almost no doubt led to the Iraq War, which even by conservative estimates killed over a hundred thousand (and by more reasonable estimates killed many more), not to mention the tens of thousands killed and yet more maimed because Bush decided not to support medical help for pregnant third-world women.
By the way, did you even read my comment #17? I’m not arguing against working for change. Just that doing so in ways that rank “sleeping well at night” above the lives of those who suffer, is self-indulgent and morally dubious.
Then there’s Section 1021 of the NDAA – which allows the government to hold American citizens indefinitely without due process.
Link:
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2013/02/07/must-watch-video-is-the-ndaa-lawsuit-headed-to-the-supreme-court/
Dude, dude, dude — when was the last time you saw Robert — I mean, face-to-face?
Unless you have recent data, you may simply fail to appreciate the urgency of the situation. Just sayin’….
Have you ever looked at Robert. I mean, really LOOKED at him?
Grace
Your collective jealousy of my ruggedly yet boyishly attractive good looks is amusing to me, for I grow more handsome and sexually compelling with each passing year.
(Seriously. Neener, neener, neener.)
I think that the thing Robert & Ampersand are really running into here is really just the difference between deontological and consequentialist ethics.
Personally, I’ve always been more of a fan of consequentialist (since I can’t imagine the moral thing as also being that which consistently produces the worse result), but both have some decent arguments.
—Myca
Speaking of “Hitler shit”, you’re essentially articulating Kant’s argument for turning hidden Jews over to any Gestapo agents who happen to ask after them.
—Myca
Pingback: Lethargic First Debate Cause Revealed: Obama Was Busy Thinking About Who To Kill, Liberals Now Know