1) I trust Obama, 2) Obama will be President Forever

[cthulu2016]

Whatever one's view of extra-judicial killing, the one thing I would hope we can agree on is that the character and prudence of a man whose presidency ends no later than January 2017 is largely irrelevant to an analysis of the policy.

We just had an election decided by 4% to determine whether Mitt F'ing Romney would be, today... like right now, the person implementing the pre-existing policy.

The issue is about the Presidency, not the President.

My personal view is that national security actions outside a declared war against a nation with a practical endpoint are not precisely the same as actions in traditional war, and that the premeditated slaying of an American citizen in that context does involve the due process rights of the citizen and thus there should be at least a fricking fig leaf of judicial review for actions that are largely police actions. Simply put—some judges should have to sign off on a kill list, in order to avoid the worst hypothetical abuses. It can be done secretly, but I'd say the intelligence committees of Congress should have access. You have to have some check in place for hypothetical cases where the military or President might be plainly wrong.

[Kelvin Mace]

1. Precisely!

I really cannot understand why folks have difficulty with that concept.

NO ONE should be trusted without question.

EVER.

[Solly Mack]

2. K&R

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. "The whole issue is about the Presidency..."

And therein lies the danger. Bush et al enacted policies that seriously attacked many of our civil rights and, when O got into office, he continued or even exapnded on many of those same, bad policies. And now that Obama has set the stage for extrajudicial killings, the future GOP President (and we WILL have one) will keep and expand of those new powers.

And so on and so on, down the Presidential line until the Big Brother Police State is so deeply entrenched there will be no going back.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

4. And it will become the new normal. nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

6. +1

[jeff47]

9. No, it's the old normal

All presidents have had this power. Because there's nothing in the Constitution that forbids these killings outside US jurisdiction.

Washington could have used drone strikes outside US jurisdiction, if we had invented drones by then.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

11. No, it would be the new normal.

This policy, while having been enacted in the past, has now become official policy, with the guise of actually being legal.

And had George Washington used drones, it would have deprived citizens of their due process rights. Against, non-citizens, it's still against international law, of course, had it existed as such back then.

[pscot]

27. This kind of casual assassination of foreigners, much less Americans

would have seemed immoral and shocking before 9-11. Because it's done by remote control, thousands of miles away we're able to ignore the reality and pretend we have no responsibility for the crimes committed in our name, but it's an act of cowardice all around, both morally and physically. We've becomes a nation of cowards; a frightened people; a little people.

[Phlem]

16. But, But,

It's Obama.



+100

-p

[ProSense]

5. The issue should be getting the policy right.

What's to stop a Republican President from abusing any power? If this issue isn't resolved, does that mean the next Republican President isn't going to write the rules?

ACLU Court Filing Argues for Judicial Review of U.S. Targeted Killings of Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022322698

The drone white paper sparked a debate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022321400

The issue isn't going away.

[Solly Mack]

12. "getting the policy right" won't stop a President from breaking the law either.

and as Presidents who break the law aren't held accountable, they have no incentive to stay within laws or policies. Not that the threat of prosecution is enough to keep people from breaking the law. Still, sending them to prison does help send a message.

You say the issue should be about getting the policy right but we both know that won't stop a President from breaking the law/policy.

So maybe it's about something more? Something else? Maybe it's about not engaging in certain actions to begin with? Maybe it's about holding government officials accountable so there will be some incentive to not break laws/policies?

I don't know the answer. I do believe the courts have a very important role in acting as a check and balance on power. But that won't be enough. Look at torture. Laws against torture stopped nothing. And Bush and the rest got away with it. There's something fundamentally wrong here.

[LittleBlue]

7. The scary thing is, there are worse leaders in history than Nixon

A lot worse.

And when he/she becomes president, we may have already conceded our rights to his predecessor.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. K & vigorously R'ed. nt

[JoePhilly]

10. No President would give up this power.

Try to recall that this power was given to "the President" after 9/11 while Bush II was President.

That's long before any of us knew who Obama was.

But even then, it was OBVIOUS that once given, NO PRESIDENT, would give up this power.

The 3 branches of our government have a constant tug of war over their powers. After 9/11 Congress increased the powers afforded to the President in this area.

No President ... Obama, Hillary, Edwards, would give them up. Why? Imagine YOU are President. Do you give up the ability to make the decisions that YOU think need to be made and give that control to a dysfunctional Congress?

Hell no. You keep them. Congress has been a mess since Clinton took office. The GOP does not care about anything but party. They'd have no problem hamstringing a Dem President.

Why do you think they tried to impeach Clinton over a BJ? Anyone think that was not a distraction?

Once a branch of government obtains an expanded power, they keep it.

[leftstreet]

13. There are 2 other branches that can take it away

But you probably know that

Whether or not a prez would 'give it up' is irrelevant

[leftstreet]

14. DURec

[longship]

15. This is a great thread.

I have stayed away from the drone threads because I have been uncertain about the issue. But this thread has put things into perspective for me.

Thank you DUers!!
R&K

[blkmusclmachine]

17. We got to where we're at today in this country,

with the participation of so-called Democrats that give nothing more than lip-service to the Party Plank.

1 Party, 2 Faces

[Coolest Ranger]

18. Kick and recommend, great post

[another_liberal]

19. You hit the nail on the head . . .

You hit the nail on the head, cthulu. The danger is not the extra-judicial murders which may yet be committed by President Obama's administration, the real danger is how this legalistic precedent will be used by future administrations, some of which may make the Cheney/Bush crowd look like mere pikers by comparison.

We have to fight the President on this point, even if we strongly support him on every other question now facing our country. If the lives of American citizens can be taken on the basis of nothing but association and suspicion of intent, we are all well and truly screwed!

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Agreed

Which is what made these so weird:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2318720

Trust should play no part in the assessment.

[DaveJ]

21. How would a Judge know more than military intelligence?

It's pretty simple: military intelligence determines that person A living will result in many deaths. If an evil President comes along and decides to kill for political reasons, I don't think a judge is going to know any different when the military says otherwise. But moreover, if we ever have a President who even WANTS to do that, then we have much worse situation. I think it's as silly as thinking a President is in it more the money, which some seem to work into their theories. Yeah these things could happen theoritically but it's 100 times more likely someone is going to blow up a city first, so that's what most people are concerned about.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. You mean 'military intelligence' like the WMDs in Iraq? The yellow cake? That kind of intelligence?

The Sec of Defense claimed we knew where the WMD were. How did that work out?

[DaveJ]

29. Yeah that was a much worse situation

One of my biggest issues at that time was, why didn't we use the one bullet technique of removing an evil dictator. Instead we sacrificed thousands of lives. I was not opposed to taking action, but the way in which we did it. The alternative to drones is to go back to sacrificing ground troops.

[cthulu2016]

24. I'm not sure what your objection is

Judicial review is not about knowing more than military intelligence.

Judicial review means that some cogent basis for a killing exists that military intelligence can describe to a fair-minded person.

A judge would not be concerned with whether the killing was a good strategic idea, or should happen at all—merely making a determination that some evidence, some good reason exists to conclude that the target is properly a target.

[DaveJ]

30. All good rational thoughts.

I'm just nitpicking. Really it sounds like the same thing as what is probably already happening at least conceptually. Hey the U.S. has been assassinating since forever. It's just now that everyone is taking notice now that we are using drones. Ok so we can have some people say they're overlooking it when really they are just going to go by what intelligence says anyway.

[frylock]

22. not to worry. the centrists will merely blame the purity pony patrol..

for the next republican president.

[Autumn]

25. Is this a true or false quiz? Cause I'm going to pick false and false.

I don't like it, and I'm not going to like it. I trust NO ONE with this power NO ONE.

[DirkGently]

26. There simply is no ethical or Constitutional rationale

for "extra judicial killings." It's rubbing people out, period. State sanctioned murder.

[lastlib]

28. The phrase that curdles my blood, and has since I first heard it out of his mouth:

"If the President does it, then it's not illegal." --Richard M. Fucking Nixon

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

It makes a mockery of our ideal of being a government of laws, not men.

[WillyT]

31. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - K & R !!!