George Bush's admin had a legal memo too - to define torture as necessary for security.

[Bonobo]

Now we have a legal memo rationalizing the killing of people, without the need for evidence, that are not even planning any specific action against the US.

It also, by the way, rationalizes the deaths of anyone that is near them when the missile explodes as "collateral damage".

Sometimes, what is necessary, is not to look more closely at the detailed rationalizations by crafty lawyers, but to take a step back and ask who we are and what we want to be -and what we want our children to be.

[quinnox]

1. maybe it is time for the Obama admin to give Alberto Gonzales a call

and see if he is available for advising the president. They seem to be on the same wavelength anyhow.

[coalition_unwilling]

21. And General Ricardo Sanchez while he's at it. (Sanchez presided over

Abu Ghraib as senior commanding officer in the U.S. Army of Occupation in Iraq.)

[Ed Suspicious]

31. Sprinkle in a little John Yoo... Imagine the possibilities! They sure have. Waterboard for all!

[ProSense]

2. George Bush lied us into war with Iraq,

a million Iraqis and more than 4,000 U.S. solidiers killed and tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers wounded, but hey, at least he didn't use drones all that much.

Are you seriously trying to equate the justification for torture with targeting terrorists?

[Bonobo]

4. It is worse.

If George Bush said that everyone he tortured was a terrorist, would you have taken him at his word?

if George Bush hadn't sent troops in but instead had just sent missiles flying into Iraq, killing thousands, would you have taken his word for it that they were all terrorists?

Well we are now doing that in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Northern Africa. And you are okay with it.

[ProSense]

7. What?

"if George Bush hadn't sent troops in but instead had just sent missiles flying into Iraq, killing thousands, would you have taken his word for it that they were all terrorists?"

The war killed nearly a million Iraqies. If he had sent a drone to take out Saddam, that would have saved a lot of lives, including the lives of more than 4,000 Americans. The problem of course was that his entire basis for targeting Saddam was a lie.

[Bonobo]

8. Did I stutter?

Or do you just choose not to answer the question?

Maybe I should choose a different country so you can stay focused on the point.

"If George Bush had just sent missiles flying into Nigeria, killing thousands, would you have taken his word for it that they were all terrorists?"

[ProSense]

9. Did I? n/t

[Bonobo]

12. When Eugene Robinson thinks a Dem is doing wrong, he needs to reflect. So do you. nt

[ProSense]

17. That happens when people ignore the facts.

I mean, there are people still spinning this to include killing Americans on U.S. soil.

No wonder the wingnuts are scared.

The answers may come to light soon enough: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022319193

[Bonobo]

19. That's not spin.

That is a reasonable fear considering the extraordinary powers that Obama is claiming combined with his secrecy and lack of transparency on the subject.

The fact that this legal memo had to be dragged out of him as a result of a law suit speaks volumes.

What "facts" do you think Eugene Robinson ignored?

[JDPriestly]

32. The issue here is not the killing, but the killing of an American citizen without the due process

guaranteed by our Constitution.

With his drone killings of American citizens, Obama has made a mockery of our Constitution.

You know that I supported the President for re-election. I'm beginning to have second thoughts.

If he wants to have support in the mid-term elections so that he can have a Congress that is more cooperative on the broader agenda he has, he is going to have to change this policy and do it loud and clear.

I do not want to be disrespectful to the President, but this drone policy violates any decent reading of the Constitution. Glen Greenwald is an expert on this. He knows.

[libtodeath]

68. I respect you but clearly being obtuse makes anyone look silly.

[coalition_unwilling]

22. "Targeting terrorists" - WTF? By whose standard and according to what

criteria? That's the whole point of due process. We don't grant due process to bad people because of who they are. We grant due process to bad people because of who we are.

Just stop.

[JDPriestly]

33. Thanks.

[Ed Suspicious]

34. This is the war that never ends. It just goes on and on my friend...

Some people started fighting it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue fighting it forever just because...This is the war that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started fighting it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue fighting it forever just because...This is the war that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend...

[rhett o rick]

29. George W. Bush justified his invasion by claiming he was only going to kill terrorists. Seems Pres

Obama is doing the same with drone strikes. Seems you are rationalizing that it's ok because the number Pres Obama is killing is smaller.

Rationalization is the key to happiness. Are you happy?

[Autumn]

3. Thank God Bush isn't President any more n/t

[Ian David]

5. There have always been situations where it has been LEGAL for our government to KILL people.

It's never been legal for our government to TORTURE people.

[Bonobo]

6. Not US citizens and not non-combatants. nt

[Ian David]

67. There have always been circumstances where that has been legal. We may have just expanded them.

Granted, the recent expansion may not be either ethical or legal.

However, there have never been any circumstances where torture has been legal.

The difference is between pushing the envelope and find a completely new envelope.

[bahrbearian]

18. Legal ? Really? What law is that? Must be one of those religious laws.

[Ian David]

65. It says right in the Constitution that Congress can make wars and the President commands an army.

What do you think those things are for?

[coalition_unwilling]

23. Then why aren't Bush and Cheney in the dock at The Hague? - n/t

[Flying Squirrel]

60. If they set foot in the wrong country, they will be.

But America is morally bankrupt and the rules "don't apply to us."

[Ian David]

66. I ask myself that every day. n/t

[spanone]

10. i do not condone this, not one little bit.

[Catherina]

11. "Yet here we are almost a full decade later"

6. Making a mockery of "due process"

The core freedom most under attack by the War on Terror is the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. It provides that "no person shall be . . . deprived of life . . . without due process of law". Like putting people in cages for life on island prisons with no trial, claiming that the president has the right to assassinate US citizens far from any battlefield without any charges or trial is the supreme evisceration of this right.

...

It is fitting indeed that the memo expressly embraces two core Bush/Cheney theories to justify this view of what "due process" requires. First, it cites the Bush DOJ's core view, as enunciated by John Yoo, that courts have no role to play in what the president does in the War on Terror because judicial review constitutes "judicial encroachment" on the "judgments by the President and his national security advisers as to when and how to use force". And then it cites the Bush DOJ's mostly successful arguments in the 2004 Hamdi case that the president has the authority even to imprison US citizens without trial provided that he accuses them of being a terrorist.

The reason this is so fitting is because, as I've detailed many times, it was these same early Bush/Cheney theories that made me want to begin writing about politics, all driven by my perception that the US government was becoming extremist and dangerous. During the early Bush years, the very idea that the US government asserted the power to imprison US citizens without charges and due process (or to eavesdrop on them) was so radical that, at the time, I could hardly believe they were being asserted out in the open.

Yet here we are almost a full decade later. And we have the current president asserting the power not merely to imprison or eavesdrop on US citizens without charges or trial, but to order them executed - and to do so in total secrecy, with no checks or oversight. If you believe the president has the power to order US citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it's truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable.

- Glenn Greenwald, "Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens", The Guardian

[Bonobo]

13. "Courts have no role to play in what the president does in the War on Terror"

Yup, that's about it.

[jeff47]

30. So where does the Constitution say it applies outside US jurisdiction?

It's very nice that we have the 5th amendment. But where does the Constitution say the Constitution is in force outside US jurisdiction?

It isn't. The president can assassinate anyone he feels like, as long as they are not in US jurisdiction. And this has been the case since Washington was President. The only things reigning in this power is an Executive Order signed by Ford, and Congress's willingness to pay for it.

[JDPriestly]

38. The Sixth Amendment applies in "all criminal prosecutions."

If we are at war with another country, then the Sixth Amendment does not apply to the soldiers and others of the country with which we are at war.

Most likely, the Supreme Court would agree with you, but they would be very wrong. The Bill of Rights limits the power and authority of our government as to us, the people. It is a covenant between us as individuals, as persons, and our government.

In my view, the Constitution gives the President the authority to do what he wants outside our country to non-citizens with whom we are at war, but the covenant that is our Constitution and our Bill of Rights limits the power of our government including the president no matter where we citizens are. If this were not true, we would not need the time-consuming process of extradition, but we do.

I disagree with your analysis. I am not an expert in this area, but this is how I see it. In my view, Obama is trying to avoid admitting the fact that he is trying American citizens as prosecutor, jury, judge and executioner. That is completely outside the basic structure and concept of our law. It defies justice. It's just downright ugly.

The Constitution is a covenant between the People of the United States and the government. I do not see how that covenant is limited by geography.

I say that as one who lived overseas for years. When you live overseas, you have to meet certain obligations as an American citizen. Maybe the most obvious one is that you have to renew your passport after a certain number of years. There are other obligations that you must fulfill. The obligations are reciprocal as far as I am concerned. If Americans under certain circumstances must pay US taxes while living abroad, then certainly they should enjoy the rights of our Constitution.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmentvi

[jeff47]

43. And this isn't a criminal prosecution. It's an assassination.

In my view, the Constitution gives the President the authority to do what he wants outside our country to non-citizens with whom we are at war

Why do citizens get special protection? And what part restricts the Executive branch's near-absolute power in foreign affairs to war?

The Constitution is a covenant between the People of the United States and the government. I do not see how that covenant is limited by geography.

It isn't limited by geography. It's limited by jurisdiction.

US troops are under US jurisdiction wherever they are deployed, thus protecting their Constitutional rights everywhere in the world.

Also, anyone captured by the US is under US jurisdiction and again has rights....at least until W showed up.

[KakistocracyHater]

62. I'm SICK & tired of you playing dumbass

actually ASKING why "should" citizens have what you speciously call "special protections".....are you an American? you do not comprehend the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights because IT'S SELF EVIDENT in SO many ways.

[jeff47]

70. No, the dumbasses are the ones thinking citizens have special due process rights.

The entire point of the due process rights in the Constitution is that they apply to EVERYONE under US jurisdiction. The accused is a human being, and all human beings have these rights.

The problem in this situation is the executive branch has near absolute power when it comes to foreign affairs. That needs to be changed. Simply stopping the drone strikes today won't fix the problem - a future president could still assassinate people.

[EastKYLiberal]

14. I have no problem with a Democratic or a Republican administration using drones...

I would be against torture no matter whom the President might be.

[Bonobo]

16. Drones against somewhat "suspected" of being a member of a group loosely affiliated with AQ

who is sitting at a McDonalds in Paris or Phoenix, AZ?

[bahrbearian]

15. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[longship]

20. Tu quoque fallacy

Tu quoque fallacy.

Defending Obama by stating that Dubya did it too, is a classic tu quoque defense, which is fallacious.

You cannot defend Obama by arguing Dubya also did something bad.

Understand, I am neither defending or condemning Obama. I am only addressing the illogic of an obvious tu quoque argument.

At this point I remain neutral on the issue, until all the information is available. I don't like how this looks, though.

No offense intended.

[coalition_unwilling]

24. I don't think the OP intended to defend Obama at all. His or her point, as I read it, is that

crimes against humanity (whether torture or extra-judicial execution) can be rendered 'legal' no matter which party is in power. That's why the OP concludes by saying we need to examine who we are and what we intend to be.

[longship]

69. Thanks. Maybe you're correct.

Sometimes it difficult to discern intent.

[coalition_unwilling]

25. Best OP I've read on the subject thus far (including, but not limited to, my own :). Tip

of my hat to you for your unde-stated eloquence.

[Arctic Dave]

26. Bush and Obama are the same coin.

Now I see why he signed a larger lifetime of SS security for both of them.

Both of them reek of American exceptionalism with overt racist tendencies.

[dsc]

36. You are telling a story you like, and not the truth

about the SS protection. It was a restoration of the protections that their predecessors enjoy including Carter and Clinton. And if you think the first black ex president isn't still going to need protection in 2027, I think you are quite naive.

[Arctic Dave]

40. So you are saying the papers lied?

He and bush are not going to get added security. Obama did not sign this?

[dsc]

42. It isn't added security

it is restoring security removed during the Clinton administration, unwisely I might add. It is no more added security than letting the Bush tax cuts expire was a tax increase.

[Arctic Dave]

44. Clinton! Damn it man, we are in another millennium. Keep up.

If you increase the amount it is just that.

Was Clinton not worthy of added SS.

[dsc]

46. Clinton got to keep his it was passed during his administration

and you can't change the compensation of a President while he is in office. The salary was raised to 400k from 200k and the secret service protection reduced from lifetime to 10 years. Clinton got neither change. The change Obama signed in his first term applied to Bush and the winner of the 12 election which ended up being him. Frankly I think given the circumstance it is a good thing that both of them will have the protection past the 10 year mark.

[Arctic Dave]

48. Circumstances like they killing and torturing people?

Not true believers in their own policies?

[dsc]

53. no like being the first black president

and most threatened ever. I think that is a pretty big deal.

[Arctic Dave]

54. Wow, that must be as dangerous as being a swarthy middle eastern Muslim.

What kind of special security details do they get?

What! None! It the first black president thats killing them!!!

[Fire Walk With Me]

58. Obama also signed HR347 which makes it a federal crime to protest where SS are present.

Combine that with his later assigning permanent SS protection to W and it becomes a possible 10-year federal prison sentence to protest the monster. wtf

[woo me with science]

27. Thank you.

K&R

[Demo_Chris]

28. The other question: given this new info, why would one believe we have actually stopped the torture?

[Arctic Dave]

50. Exactly.

It's the weasel words they use.

"We have stopped" but we send them to countries were they do it for us as reported earlier today.

[OnyxCollie]

56. Torture has been outsourced to Egypt.

And Libya.

And Morocco.

And Poland.

And a fancy, private horse stable in Lithuania.

"Nothing to see here. Move along."

[green for victory]

63. Don't forget Kosovo's Camp Bondsteel

Long after the first PNAC war- Kosovo- was over, Camp Bondsteel remains:

The United States Army has been criticised for using the base as a detention facility, and for the conditions faced by the detainees there.

In November 2005, Alvaro Gil-Robles, the human rights envoy of the Council of Europe, described the camp as a "smaller version of Guantanamo" following a visit. The Swiss newspaper Weltwoche reported, "A German report by the Berlin Institute for European Policy, produced last year on behalf of the German army... is particularly critical of the role of the US, which had obstructed European investigations and which had been opened up to political extortion by the existence of a secret CIA detention center on the grounds of Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo...”[3] In response, the US Army stated that there were no secret detention facilities in the Camp.

[leftstreet]

35. DURec

[OnyxCollie]

37. Under the Obama administration, the Pentagon found no fault

in its propaganda campaign leading up to the Iraq war.

Pentagon Finds No Fault in Ties to TV Analysts
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/us/pentagon-finds-no-fault-in-its-ties-to-tv-analysts.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all-12-26/news/30559559_1_bachmann-romney-santorum&

In January 2009, the inspector general’s office issued a report that said it had found no wrongdoing in the program. But soon after, the inspector general’s office retracted the entire report, saying it was so riddled with inaccuracies and flaws that none of its conclusions could be relied upon. In late 2009, the inspector general’s office began a new inquiry.

The results of the new inquiry, first reported by The Washington Times, confirm that the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld made a concerted effort starting in 2002 to reach out to network military analysts to build and sustain public support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

~snip~

But several former top aides to Mr. Rumsfeld insisted that the purpose of the program was merely to inform and educate, and many of the 63 military analysts interviewed during the inquiry agreed.

Given the conflicting accounts, the inspector general’s office scrutinized some 25,000 pages of documents related to the program. But except for one “unsigned, undated, draft memorandum,” investigators could not find any documents that described the strategy or objective of the program. Investigators said that to understand the program’s intent, they had to rely on interviews with Mr. Rumsfeld’s former public affairs aides, including his spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke. Based on these interviews, the report said, investigators concluded that the “outreach activities were intended to serve as an open information exchange with credible third-party subject-matter experts” who could “explain military issues, actions and strategies to the American public.”

The Obama administration has shielded the Bush administration from torture investigations, both here and abroad.

Then Senator Obama promised to filibuster a bill that would give retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies; instead, he voted for it. (Both he and Rahm were the top recipients of 2008 AT&T campaign contributions.) The domestic surveillance program has expanded under the Obama administration.

This is in addition to the fun stuff the Bush administration left behind, like NSPD 51.

So now the Obama administration can monitor our phone calls, emails, Twitter accounts, Google searches, etc. to determine if we're an associate of a terror organization (Occupy? WikiLeaks?) and either rendition us to another country to be tortured and coerced to confess a crime that was never committed, or assassinate us by drone without a trial. And then lie about it.

We're lucky the bad guy didn't win.

[Bonobo]

39. And this legal masterwork memo will shield Mr. Obama as well.

It is how it is done.

After all, he was just operating under the best legal counsel available.

[OnyxCollie]

45. "The lawyers said it was legal."

I remember when George Bush said that to Matt Lauer on the Today show when Bush was questioned about torture (or was it domestic spying? I forget. Anyway, it doesn't matter now.)

And then Bush hawked his book. Isn't that nice?

[cliffordu]

41. Kinda outing yourself tonight.

And I wish you all the success you can possibly have with it.

[Bonobo]

49. You mean that I'm not a goose-stepper? Guilty as charged. nt

[cliffordu]

51. Godwin.

The last refuge of the folks bereft of solution. And as it turns out, ideas.

He got here real quick with this OP.

Perfect.

[kenny blankenship]

52. You can always come back

There will certainly be fresh atrocities that need defenders and apologists and they don't care what they have to say or who joins their swarm.

[kenny blankenship]

47. Amazingly Reagan had an Executive Order saying assassination was illegal

Last edited Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:34 AM - Edit history (1)

not just a memo
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/15/five-reasons-drone-assassinations-are-illegal/
In 1976 U.S. President Gerald Ford issued Executive Order 11905, Section 5(g), which states “No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.” President Reagan followed up to make the ban clearer in Executive Order 12333. Section 2.11 of that Order states “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Section 2.12 further says “Indirect participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.” This ban on assassination still stands.

The reason for the ban on assassinations was that the CIA was involved in attempts to assassinate national leaders opposed by the US. Among others, US forces sought to kill Fidel Castro of Cuba, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, and Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam.

That was the result of the Church Committee investigations into the CIA's family jewels. Assassination was presumed to be illegal, and since the CIA was ignoring that, Congress underlined it for the Executive just as FISA court law was supposed to underline for the Executive that warrantless wiretapping was unConsititutional, per the 4th Amendment. But that was then and now we're back in the assassination business. YEE HAW! WE'RE BACK BABY!

Can you wait for the rationalizations for renewed torture when it comes out that we're back in that business too? Hey, we've always used torture - ask the Filipinos! Ask the Vietnamese! They know! All Presidents have always had this power ! Oh yeah, it's gonna be sweet.

[krawhitham]

55. small difference, torture does not work

[Bonobo]

57. That's EXACTLY what John Lennon would have said! nt

[cthulu2016]

59. You made me laugh

[Democracyinkind]

64. Any indication as to the success of our assassination program?

[malaise]

61. Good post

Rec

[woo me with science]

71. kick

[woo me with science]

72. kick

[idwiyo]

73. K&R To see support for this monstrosity on DU is really something.

[Bonobo]

74. On one hand, it is not surprising. But it an excellent illustration of human nature.

I can see why some people are offended by the phrase "you have no moral compass", but I am afraid it is accurate.

If a person would vigorously oppose the same action in a Dem president that they approve of because their party is doing it, then I am afraid that is a real indictment of their "moral compass" (insert any other phrase meaning the same thing here).

[idwiyo]

75. I have hard time understanding this type of mentality. I would be ashamed of myself if I changed

The tune simply because "my team" is in power.

I still want to know the answer to one simple question: how do we know that anyone murdererd by a drone under this policy is actually a "bad guy"?

Don't we have enough examples of people wrongfully convicted by legal justice system? Did everyone already forgot that even something as solid as DNA evidence is not really that solid if it comes from a lab like Huston crime lab (google DNA and Huston Crime lab). What about convictions obtained with the help of Forensic Hair Comparison (google forensic hair comparison)?

[Bonobo]

79. I'd like to see someone answer that question as well. nt

[FleetwoodMac]

76. Surely you jest?

Now we have a legal memo rationalizing the killing of people, without the need for evidence, that are not even planning any specific action against the US.

Prey tell, how did you arrived at this astonishing conclusion?

[treestar]

77. So all legal memos on all subjects are therefore wrong?

[Bonobo]

78. Wow, that was EXACTLY what I said!

Man, you are fucking brilliant~!

You like, nailed me to a stump with your incisive wit and penetrating powers of analysis, Sir.

[treestar]

80. George Bush had a dog, too

It's wrong to have a dog!

Legal memos are about different things. Newsflash. There are millions of them, not just the ones the media tries to use to help the Republicans.

[Bonobo]

81. You are on a roll!!!

Here I thought that legal memos were about the SAME thing.

My point is that a "legal memo" does not mean something is either legal, ethical or wise.

That is why I compared it to the assassination/drone memo.