Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe law of war does not shield the CIA and John Brennan's drone kill list
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/08/law-war-cia-john-brennan-drone-kill-listCIA director nominee John Brennan confronts protesters at the US Senate. Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
The disclosure Tuesday evening of the Department of Justice white paper on targeted killing (pdf) has sparked a lot of debate, much of it focused on the Obama administration's extraordinarily broad interpretation of what constitutes an "imminent" threat that justifies lethal force as an act of self-defense. As Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) told reporters during a conference call on Wednesday, "only a team of lawyers could define 'imminent' to mean the exact opposite" of what the word means in the real world.
There are, no doubt, many Americans alive today who should be thankful their healthcare providers did not apply the administration's interpretation of "imminent" to decide if they had crossed over the line of imminent death and said pull the plug.
Some people have acquired power and profits in post-9/11 America by pandering to and perpetuating fear. As has been the case on a range of legal issues torture, indefinite detention, warrantless surveillance, kill lists all it takes is for someone to say "terrorism" and "threat to security" in the same breath for the vast majority of the public to handover its principles. Rather than a serious discussion on the proper law/liberty/security balance, too often the public accepts the false syllogism that whatever it takes to stop "them" from hurting "us" is obviously, as White House spokesman Jay Carney might say, "legal, ethical and wise".
Targeted killing falls into that category. The discussion tends to glom what should be several discrete inquiries where will the lethal operation take place; who is the imminent threat and why; who will conduct the operation; and what laws apply, among others into one big ball that slides through with little scrutiny.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 655 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The law of war does not shield the CIA and John Brennan's drone kill list (Original Post)
xchrom
Feb 2013
OP
leveymg
(36,418 posts)1. It's not Brennan's kill list - it's Obama's that can be corrected by issuing a new Executive Order
countermanding the one he wrote creating this problem for the bureaucrats who work for him (and the rest of us).
bemildred
(90,061 posts)2. This is starting to get interesting. nt