After refusing in the past even to acknowledge the existence of memos offering a legal basis for targeting American citizens who’ve become Al Qaeda leaders, the Obama administration on Thursday agreed to show these documents to members of the congressional intelligence committees. It’s a positive step, but doesn’t go far enough. The administration owes the public a broader explanation of the legal theories behind drone attacks on Americans who have joined Al Qaeda, such as Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical cleric who was killed in 2011.
The attacks have become a topic of concern surrounding President Obama’s nomination of John Brennan, the White House counterterrorism adviser, to head the CIA. Earlier this week, NBC obtained an administration “white paper” outlining its procedures for targeting American citizens who have become “high level” Al Qaeda officials. The paper states that the CIA can strike only if “an informed, high-level official” decides the citizen poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.”
Comments
These people are traitors. There is a legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitor. Tranlated as "the thing speaks for itself".
The government needs no special permission to go after these people, kill them wherever you can find them and however you are able.
This comment has been removed.
He can explain that he is Judge, Jury and executioner.........how about some reporting on the 3000 innocent people killed by our drones in the last four years, 176 of them children. ?????????
This comment has been removed.
The government regardless of who is in power owes the people an explanation regarding the execution of an American citizen without due process. The government needs to describe upon what legal basis it has made this determination. However, it is not for the public to decide whether the interpretation of law is correct or incorrect, that determination is decided by the Courts or by the legislature through its funding mechanisms.
I am not a big fan of "killing" people but I also recognize that it can be a necessary fact o life. I don't think Obama is a big fan of it either but finds it necessary. I do not think however that this administration or any administration must bare its soul to the public. The Congress must be informed, the actions transparent to the representatives of the people and the acceptance of this policy by the legislature gives it the stamp of approval going forward.
It is not the middle ages and we need not execute every seditious or traitorous act, however those that have been targeted appear to have gone beyond those descriptions to the point of enemy combatant. If this is in fact an ongoing war then collateral damage, the killing of innocents, is an expected and acceptable side effect of any military action.
This comment has been removed.
The Globe's silence on Obama's hypocrisy is defeaning. Here is a man who rose to power on the wave of anti Bush sentiment that came as political opportunity came available by questioning the tactics used in our war on terror. The warrantless wiretaps, the enhanced interrogation, many parts of the patriot act, the unmanned drones, the renditions, were all fodder for hate filled liberals, seething with visions of putting Bush in jail.
People like me knew all along that Obama's tune would change, when the burden of keeping the nation safe was placed on him. Under that burden, he saw that the tactics had worked well, and he continue most of them. But his witch hunt did not end after taking office-he did try and get CIA operatives in legal trouble for their water boarding, of 3 terrorists, who provided mountains of information from the efforts.
The use of drones is an effective tool. But to suggest that waterboarding is "torture" and thus illegal; while acting as judge, jury and executioner on these drone attacks is the height of hypocrisy. One may argue that by blowing up terrorists, Obama is being the humanitarian, by saving them from having to go to Gunatanamo and be questioned.
Obama will go down as the first president who used war policy to seek political gain. He did so with the help of an adoring media, who, to this day, sees no problem with calling George Bush a war criminal, while kissing the feet of the man who maintained 99% of those illegal tactics. I wonder if our next president will seek to indict the operatives who fly the drones. That would be consistent with the Obama-Holder actions upon their coming to power.
How do you get to "silence" when you just read an article critical of the administration?
Comparing "water boarding" to the actions with drones is indeed a stretch. Whether one likes it or not "assassination" has long been an action taken by every administration. Torture however is something that we as American's have never look upon favorably either in the military or out of it. Simply because we have been repulsed by it when used by enemies and by the fact that most civilized countries have rejeceted it.
Now I may not love the drone policy and I may intensely dislike the Patriot Act and a number of other things done by both Bush and Obama when it comes to foreign policy I tend to leave politics on the shoreline. The fulcrum of many of these actions was not 9/11 but the Iraq war and for that war I blame both Bush and the Congress that authorized it.
You find partisan politics in the rising and the setting of the sun. Sometimes policy regardless of party is just simply wrong.
The silence is in the lack of mention of Obama's hypocrisy. He travelled the world apologizing for and bad mouthing his country. His behavior would have been like Thomas Dewey running against Harry Truman, and demonizing him for using nuclear weapons on Japan. Obama's behavior on this is reprehensible, and the idol worshippers at the Globe skip over that part of the question.
The first thing I have a problem with is that the "legal basis" for these killings is being termed a matter of national security. A legal argument is now a matter of National Security? Law is law, it does not contain secrets. Unless someone in government has written secret laws the rest of us do not know about. Or a set of "rules" that within secret committess they have agreed are just.
How information is obtained to locate an individual for targeting is not a "legal basis" or "legal argument".
During WWII, some US citizens of German descent returned to Germany to fight on the German side. It would have been impossible for the average soldier to determine citizenship during a battle, so if they were killed, no problem.
Here we have a case of intelligence determining who is being targeted, citizenship is known. The question obviously becomes: is this person being targeted BECAUSE they have gone to the other side?
This whole drone thing is very dangerous. Someone is declared a "terrorist or enemy", then someone remotely executes them. It is like a remote controlled Death Squad controlled by a small group of people.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
I expect the left to call for impeachment as they did w/ Bush and Cheny for 3 waterboardings
Be carefule begolfing, next thing you know, you will be labeled a "domestic terrorist". Then you will find a "death drone" circling high above you. Of course, that will be after a secret meeting attended by secret members at which a secret conclusion was reached that you were a threat.
Loks like Obama and Hillary were both AWOL on Benghazi - despitre the MSM trying to down play it
This comment has been removed.
Remote control Death Squads.
Technology is wonderful.
I just love LesVal's argument that Death Drones save lives and $.
This comment has been removed.
HHK, in your blind hatred disguised as patriotism, you miss the point. These DOJ papers are granting the executive branch a power that was never intended by the constitution. You really think the idea of having a secret panel of people who decided that someone is a threat and then orders their execution is a good idea? Are you nutz? It may be working in your favor now, but how long before it is misused?
You can politely stick your reference to Jane Fonda in an appropriate place, has nothing to do with her, nor is anyone apologizing for radical Islamists. Pull your head out of whatever dark orifice it is in.
This comment has been removed.
"Richmond" It is one thing to have an opinion and another thing to shade or twist the truth. In the politcal sphere the last two are even acceptable. But you have to start out with a fact. The President has never bad mouthed the country, has never apologized for the country. I have seen on at least three occassions Republicans asked to substantiate that claim and that they cannot do it. The reason they can't is because he has never done it. Your problem is when a major policy issue such as this comes up all you can be is critical, because you don't have an opinion on the policy you merely dislike the President. I'm sorry my friend but it amounts to saying nothng and convinces no one else you are correct about whatever your position on the policy is, all they see is your bias.
How about this quote? "Once elected, Mr. Obama declared in a 2009 speech: "The decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable." The Bush policies failed, he said, "to rely on our legal traditions and our time-tested institutions" and also failed "to use our values as a compass."
The examples of his apologies and bad mouthing America are numerous. It was quite easy to find this one. But despite saying those things, he maintained the policies, becuase they worked.