Amen

But we're talking about American citizens not formally accused of any crimes here. Traditionally, we've had certain constitutional rights.

greater than a terrorist.... so I can see why we will need armed drones flying overhead.

in war against us. If they don't like the consequences of their bad behavior, that's just too bad.

Isn't that circular reasoning?

If kestrel get's killed/arrested/beaten by a cop or just by anybody, it's obvious he was guilty and accepts his punishment. He's not asking Magna Charta rights for himself and knows that King Obama can't be wrong as he is vehicle of divine justice.

doesn't go with your comments, dear.

DUers who support bogus War on Terror and murdering our children in Pakistan and elsewhere?

See? It's just a game of identities, all that "us" against "them", and taking side of some "us" in that game you make yourself "them" and "enemy" to the other "us".

How hard would it have been to capture him alive and transport him someplace for a trial?

They didn't expect that to be very likely but it was the first objective of the mission.

"alive if possible"

So why didn't they?

Bin Laden - Bush family connections, Osama's CIA history etc. etc. is not something the establishment enjoys discussing publicly...

their ways after being tazed a time or two.

Not to mention that the victims of our "justice" might be found innocent by a jury and that would be soooooo embarrassing.

It probably fits this situation better. That book was more black comedy than tragedy, however, so I wasn't sure about it for this case.

Orwellian probably better fits saying an "imminent threat" doesn't have to be planning something in the "immediate future".

These are people that have deliberately gone overseas to join up with al-Queada. If you go over there and hang out with terrorists you end up on this list. It's not like they are just randomly targeting people or picking any American that happens to be out of the country. You have to earn your way on to this list.

These people aren't in the game to surrender, they're in it to plot attacks on this country and people.

This naïveté is ridiculous. You don't fire warning shots or trumpet your intentions to these people. When they stick their heads out, you nail them. Don't give them a chance to go into hiding.

I'm sorry but terrorists get no sympathy from me wherever they originate from.

Did I miss the trial?

How do you know Lanza really shot up Sandy Hook?

Skepticism is one thing, conspiracy theories are another.

The names of the people who compile the list are secret.
The justification for the policy is secret (the white paper is not the actual justification).

Not even Congress knows these things.

Worrying that such a program might be misguided isn't buying into conspiracy theories. It's not placing blind trust in an all-powerful executive.

Or rather, even if it is a crime, that's not what's being addressed here.

I think you're making a category error here. The military is authorized to use force outside of US territory against a criminal / terrorist organization. This is not even a new thing; the Barbary Wars were a similar concept. Neither Al Qaeda nor the Barbary Corsairs published an order of battle like states do, but in both case res ipsa loquitur: if you're on the corsair, or in the Al Qaeda operations camp, you are just as subject to military action as anyone else there, despite your citizenship.

If you are captured or surrender (and remember, Al Qaeda members have surrendered, as have American citizens in the Taliban), and you're a citizen, your custody becomes a thorny issue the military and government would rather not deal with, but that's beside this point.

Your argument appears to be that in circumstances resembling war, the burden of proof on the executive is considerably lowered.

What scares me is that this is a war that appears to have no end and no geographic limitations. The idea of using a state of war to justify expanded executive authority indefinitely goes against what I think of as our constitutional ideals. To me, this whole era should be treated as an era of (heightened) law enforcement. For the executive to arrogate dubious wartime powers with so few limits is frightening to me, personally. I worry that it will lead to a permanent expansion of executive power.

Would you support repealing the AUMF, with the understanding that this effectively ends the quasi-war started just after 9/11 and expanded powers like this?

Without hesitation. It was a mistake and I said so very loudly in 2001 (well, as loudly as I could at the time, since I was still in the military).

I worry that it will lead to a permanent expansion of executive power.

Me too, especially since this seems to have actually not been a power grab, but the pretty much unavoidable consequence of an overly-broad authorization of force.

Would it be fair to say that your position is that while the AUMF is in effect, the president does have the right to compile and implement this kill list, but that you believe the AUMF should be repealed?

My position, which you've helped me clarify, is that even with the AUMF in effect, the executive should not exercise this power. I agree that the AUMF was too vague. Given how vague it is, I feel like it should be interpreted narrowly, not broadly, though of course those in power will always choose the latter. I'm extremely disappointed that a Democratic president has decided to maximize executive authority under these circumstances.

Thank you for the discussion. It took me a while to understand what you were trying to say.

Good discussion.

I'm pretty sure this is classified information gathered by covert agents or operatives on the inside of the organizations we're monitoring. They aren't going to make such info public.

What they aren't going to do is fly a drone down your street and bomb your house for no reason. It's not just the survivalist types that are super paranoid about the government.

My whole point is that the executive is saying that people accused of being terrorists can't argue they aren't they give up their rights because their terrorists. In other words, your presumed guilt deprives you of your chance to prove your innocence.

Yeah, it kind of sucks but if you're hanging around al-Queada types and our spies notice, you're going to get it.

What non-terror related reason would Americans have for being around such people? I can't think of any.

These are people that have been watched for years. Is it possible that one can merely be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Absolutely. But the spooks are generally pretty good at this sort of thing.

My advice? Don't accidentally be hanging around terrorist leaders in Yemen or Pakistan or wherever.

We've had lots of intelligence failures in the past. We were certain that Saddam had WMD, for example. We don't believe everyone the police arrests or the DA prosecutes is guilty. I'm wary of trusting a secret panel to do much better.

In fact, the full analysis of the information said the exact opposite. Dick Cheney cherry picked the info he wanted released and only that information got out, even to the intelligence committees. It wasn't until later that we found out the truth. Nefarious people will do nefarious things. The problem is that no one is ever held accountable.

I agree that there are failures and that you really can't trust anyone but the fact is that even though there are corrupt cops, we don't disband law enforcement. And we can't discount and dismiss all the good work these agencies do on these national security matters simply because they get it wrong occasionally.

There is also the fact that, as it's always been, if they want you, they're going to get you. This is just a new fangled method.

You've helped me understand a different perspective.

I'm going to wrap up my participation in this for now. I find I get a little too worked up and perhaps get a little too aggressive. In the end, most of us share most beliefs, and I don't want to promote acrimony, even if that often seems like the purpose of the Internet.

Cheers.

It's nice to have a civilized conversation that doesn't degenerate into a flame war.

Cheers to you as well and a good night.

Due process is not sympathy.

You're giving them a heads up about what's coming and possibly ruining years of covert information gathering and blowing the cover of agents on the inside if you go public with a show trial.

Stay away from terrorist groups if you don't want to get droned. There is no good reason for any innocent person to be around them. There just isn't.

You might want to reconsider your tag-line, way too ironic, though your handle, not so much.

Just because "there's no good reason" in your mind (or more importantly in the mind of some spook) for anyone to be in the vicinity of a "terrorist group" doesn't mean we have the right to kill that person. Far from it.

What about reporters? Merchants? Family? It's just not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.

What journalist is going to be hanging around the Islamic Jihad without the ops knowing about it? What merchant is going to be at their compound or hideout or whatever without knowing who these people are? If they have American family members that just so happen to be there on the day of an operation, well that's just poor timing.

It's not really as complex as you make it out to be. Stay away from the bad guys.

I am a great fan of irony.

We can't all agree about everything. What fun would that be?

Have a good one.

It's right above your reply to me.

Thanks for the heads up.

You're a Marine guard at a US consulate. Somebody on your AQ watch list approaches ostensibly to surrender. How close do you feel like letting him get?

After 9/11, I spent a lot of time saying naval laws on piracy should be the governing rules for terrorism; those laws involve a lot of summary execution and, in fact, pirates cannot "surrender" per se. The relevant doctrine is hostis humani generis; though in principle it's Congress that the Constitution grants the authority for that to. On the other hand, the authorization of force after 9/11 was so broad that I'm afraid this is pretty much within the President's rights as it is now.

I said he's been hanging out with people known to strap explosives to themselves. He's approaching the consulate you're guarding. How close do you feel like letting him get?

... do not actually have to be planning anything in the immediate future.

I said his citizenship is not a factor in the rules of engagement against him, and used a rather dramatic scenario of his approaching a consulate to illustrate that. He may not be planning to blow himself up. But what's the Lance Corporal to do?

You order him to halt. If he doesn't, you fire a warning shot. If he continues, then sure, use lethal force. I'm not sure how that affects the discussion about the drone policy.

And frankly I think they muddy the issue.

Could the President order an artillery barrage against a U.S. citizen's position? An infantry assault? I think in both cases, the answer would be yes.

This nebulous war that we're fighting, against no definite enemy, restricted to no geographic area, and unlimited in time, justifies all sorts of restrictions on our civil liberties. Warrantless wiretapping? Indefinite detention? Execution without trial?

Are we giving the president the power to designate any US citizen a terrorist and to have that person killed in perpetuity?

Amazing.

See the end of Wyden's statement and Brennan's final comment, starts at 3:15:00

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Senate-Committee-Hears-from-CIA-Director-Nominee/10737437877/

#%^*

He finally answered the question.

Why do you think he refused to answer for so long?

All they have to do is get on a plane to NY, or walk into a US embassy.

How can you give yourself up if you don't even know they're after you?

an attack on US targets that it might clue them in that they might be on such a list.

... the government thinks you have?

is being run by a fake al-Qaeda handler being run by an NSA agent?

And that US intelligence & law enforcement wouldn't prefer to question them & find out what they know about al Qaeda, rather than kill them?

They're on a kill list. And, based on Imperial Minister Brennan's response, not allowed to surrender. Of course since it's a secret that they've been charged, it's all hypothetical.

I doubt he would have the clearance. Once he's disarmed and restrained, it's pretty obvious they aren't going to summarily execute him.

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
Donald Rumsfeld
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/donaldrums148142.html#pklreFi1bLQGjdRl.99

...as established by the constitution, article 1, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces."

As much as he should know, Brennan might not know that. But anyone in the military - from private up to the top - would know exactly what the rights and procedures were for a foe to surrender were. I think it doesn't come up very often, though, as you pretty much have to have a serious list of crimes going to get on the list.

Any liberal moves by this admin will be obliterated by this single HORRIBLY wrong policy.

WE will suffer as well. If it is not okay to do so with a Republican President, it is NOT okay to do it with a Democratic President. Period!

They have become obsessed with their power and that power needs to be checked. Unfortunately for us the Congress is impotent to do this. My view is Congress should immediately de-fund all drone activities until the Administration answers for itself. Brennan should be sent to Guantanamo for crimes against humanity and Obama should be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize.

Don't get me wrong. I voted for BO in 2008 and 2012 but this has gone too far. At some point we have to be a nation of laws and not men. I want to take out terrorists before they seriously threaten us but I cannot condone Brennan's statement that "once you are on the list".....

That is the same as saying once you have been mid-identified on the TSA no-fly list, you are available for a kill.

NO, that is not the nation we are Brennan. Fuck you and hope you rot in hell......

"You gave up the right to a trial when you were classified (not necessarily "became&quot a terrorist."

Also, if you are stupid enough to sit close to someone the government has declared a terrorist, your life is at risk. Collateral damage has become acceptable.

There would be a lot more of it with troops on the ground. I'd prefer that we weren't meddling in ANY other country's affairs but since we are, it's the Command-In-Chief's job and responsibility to make those kind of calculations.

Heaven help us all.

Or else we might have to worry if a Republican ever became President (not that THAT will ever happen, right?)

A decade ago we were shocked at the idea that the government might secretly read a few emails to foreign recipients and listen in on phone calls to identified terrorists. If you weren't phoning AQ in Kabul you had nothing to worry about. Ten years later here we are. Now the government is claiming the legal authority to kill anyone they want, whenever they want, with no oversight or supervision, secret rules of engagement, no questions or review. And this is our guy.

From reading a few emails to this in a decade. It won't stop here of course. They want more power than just this.

Ten years from now where will we be?


What special and necessary power is President Ryan or President Paul going to be wielding? You can say, "Oh they'd never do that!" but that's what people said at prior to every step along this path. Spy on regular people? No way! Torture? No way! Indefinate detention without a trial? Not a chance! Killing Americans without a trial? What are you, a freaking nut?!

So yeah, anyone who says they would NEVER fire a hellfire into an Occupy drum circle or a Code Pink meeting or an abortion clinic is kidding themselves. Of course they would. It's not like they have some ethical reason not to. They won't today, or next week, but that day is coming. Sadly, that day is on it's way.

pose a potential threat.

It's a sad state of affairs, but that cracked me up, major.