Govt. Use Of Drones and Fear Towards President Obama: One Important Thing NBC Left Out

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

After watching the report tonight on NBC Nightly News regarding a new Justice Department memo justifying the use of drones, specifically when it is involving a U.S. citizen, I found myself with mixed feelings.

On one hand, it is nice to have elements of the U.S. media that will report questionable activities in the U.S. government, whether the current administration is Democratic or Republican.

However....

One pertinent piece of information that was left out is WHERE the President gets authority to directly order military action toward an individual who is a suspected terrorist. On September 14, 2001, Congress overwhelmingly voted to pass a Joint Resolution called the "Authorization for Use of Military Force". It passed by a margin of 420-11 in the House and 98-2 in the Senate. The Resolution has been modified and updated, with virtually the same language, but here is the explicit language of the original Resolution where Congress first gave power to President Bush:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Like I said, this Resolution has been updated, and President Obama actually issued a veto threat in 2011 over language of the authority to detain.

I understand some of the concerns among some with regards to this power possibly being abused at some point in the future, however, in Michael Isakoff's report, I believe it misleads individuals to believe that a President's authority to do this, whether George W. Bush or Barack Obama, was given to the President by himself. It was not. Congress overwhelming gave some of this authority to the President, not a specific person.

As if there wasn't enough fear from the far-right with regards to President Obama.

[randome]

1. Good point.

I'm not that concerned about the 'white paper' but I WOULD prefer that Congress withdraw its blanket approval of anything the Executive Branch wants to do.

They were cowards when they gave up that power and they are cowards now for not taking it back.

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

2. Exactly.

Actions like that have the potential to set up a dangerous precedent in the future.

[JaneyVee]

3. Since Pres.Obama is committed to ending war in 2014 we should get a WH petition going that states

the resolution shall expire at the end of the Afghani War in 2014. Maybe I'll start one, it's 2013, by 2014 we could have millions of signatures. Only 100K needed for a response. Millions would be a mandate.

[msongs]

5. get your drone proof security going first ok? nt

[JaneyVee]

6. Drone proof security?

ETA: I'm not affiliated with a terrorist organization nor am I outside of the United States.

[mahilena]

4. Excellent Point...that is the danger the thought Obama did this on his own ...I am passing your post

Also review
Targeted Killings: Justified Acts of War

"Since 9/11, the United States has been involved in a war against al-Qaeda. One of the
primary tools used in this unconventional war is targeted killing. Critics have argued that this
policy is illegal and morally wrong. Furthermore, some have argued that the policy only makes
the United States more vulnerable. Further investigation shows that although there are flaws with American targeted killings, especially regarding its secrecy, targeted killings are a legal and
morally justified application of lethal force in modern day warfare. This paper examines targeted
killings in greater detail and offers policy recommendations to make their use more transparent"

http://globalsecuritystudies.com/Clark%20Targeted.pdf

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. Neocon power grab. Thank you for the clarity.

[rhett o rick]

8. Tell me if I got this straight. You are admitting that the president has tremendous power

with regard to killing suspected terrorists, but it isnt his fault. Congress did it. Then you go on to say, "this Resolution has been updated, and President Obama actually issued a veto threat in 2011 over language of the authority to detain." Precisely how had the resolution been updated?? And Pres Obama "actually issues a veto threat", What is a "veto threat"?