backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by nrhpd527.. on Feb 11 at 10:51 PM


  (Source: Reuters)
Classified document defines under what circumstances a death strike is warranted

The Senate Intelligence Committee will this morning receive a classified document that provides a more formalized version of the policies contained in a white paper memo -- "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force" -- which leaked to the press earlier this week.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) -- chairwoman of the committee -- cheered the release, commenting, "I am pleased that the president has agreed to provide the Intelligence Committee with access to the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion regarding the use of lethal force in counterterrorism operations.  It is critical for the committee's oversight function to fully understand the legal basis for all intelligence and counterterrorism operations."

The committee had already received the memo, but did not receive its more highly classified counterpart, which was responsible for actual policy decisions.

The Obama Administration looked to put a positive spin on the release, commenting, "Today, as part of the president's ongoing commitment to consult with Congress on national security matters, the president directed the Department of Justice to provide the congressional Intelligence committees access to classified Office of Legal Counsel advice related to the subject of the Department of Justice White Paper."

President Obama
President Obama says killing American terrorists without a warrant is the kind of "tough decision" you sometimes have to make. [Image Source: AFP/Getty Images]

The U.S. has to date killed over 28 al-Qaida terrorist leaders under the Bush and Obama administration using drone strikes.  Among those was U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a Sept. 2011 drone strike in Yemen.

The controversy over al-Awlaki's death was that no warrant or indictment had been issued against him. And while he was intimately involved with al-Qaida, U.S. intelligence did not indicate he was directly involved with a current terror plot.  The question was whether Mr. al-Awlaki received his Constitutionally guaranteed right to due process.

Despite the controversy, President Obama is finding some surprising support.  House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) agreed with his political foe this time, commenting, "[al-Awlaki was] somebody who had said that he didn't want his U.S. citizenship anymore.  He had officially joined al Qaeda.  Al Qaeda had declared war on the United States."

"The legal basis of this goes back many, many years when U.S. citizens would go and fight for foreign nations that were engaging in combat with the United States. So what they were saying is, once you've made that choice, you no longer get the protections that you would. I mean, if you join the enemy overseas, you join the enemy overseas. And we're going to fight the enemy overseas."

On Jon Stewart's Daily Show, President Obama indirectly defended the policy in a guest appearance, stating:

There are times where there are bad folks somewhere on the other side of the world, and you've got to make a call and it's not optimal.  And sometimes you've got to make some tough calls. But you can do so in a way that's consistent with international law and with American law.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) calls death strikes on Americans without indictments a "chilling" precedent.  They and the President's critics fear that the Obama administration or future administrations could arbitrarily label political enemies "terrorists" and target them with unconstitutional death strikes.
 

Reaper drones
Reaper drones are currently being used over U.S. airspace. [Image Source: The Real Revo]
 
The issue may be rectified if Congress steps in and pushes a more concrete definition of what constitutes a "terrorist".

Source: CNN



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Due process is dead
By retrospooty on 2/10/2013 8:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
Dood, as much as piiman is passing it off as a mistake, you are piling on as if its the biggest blunder in foreign policy history. You sound like Fox news, making every little thing into a huge issue. FFS, mistakes happen. You cant respond to every threat, people die. Its not the fault the president when an embassy is overrun. Hell Bush ignored many credible warnings and 911 happened. It's not his fault, its the fault of the murderous asses that did it. There are plenty of real things to attack Obama on about the economy and spending/debt. To blow things like this out of proportion just isnt necessary.


RE: Due process is dead
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2013 7:10:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There are plenty of real things to attack Obama on about the economy and spending/debt.


Yes and you went to GREAT lengths defending Obama on THAT issue in the past too. Admit it, you cannot abide ANY criticism of this President.

You voted for the man, you did. Not me. You sound like one of those Apple guys defending their purchase to the last breath. Just admit you suck at politics, make poor decisions, and move on.

quote:
Hell Bush ignored many credible warnings and 911 happened.


....

Amazing. Going on 5 years now and you just cannot question Obama without the "blame Bush" card being used!!!

And are you seriously suggesting that ANYTHING could have been done to stop 911 with the information he had? You people act like he had a specific time, date, and plan of attack all spelled out. But just dropped the ball. Give me a goddamn break!

Sure I guess he could have stopped all air traffic in the country for a month or so. That would have stopped 911, but...

Argh I can't even believe you drew me into that absurd argument. You bring up Bush AND Fox News?? Seriously? Just fuck you. That is getting SO tired. You will NOT shut me up with that tactic.


RE: Due process is dead
By retrospooty on 2/11/2013 7:37:02 AM , Rating: 2
"Yes and you went to GREAT lengths defending Obama on THAT issue in the past too. Admit it, you cannot abide ANY criticism of this President."

You say that right after I said my own critisicm of Obama and his piss poor handling of the economy??? OK. What is it about politics that riles you up so much and makes you throw logic and objectivity out the window in favor of criticizing anything and everything the other side does?

"You voted for the man, you did. Not me."

I told you, I voted for him in 08. in the 12 election I voted for Romney, because I think Obama has done a poor job.

"Amazing. Going on 5 years now and you just cannot question Obama without the "blame Bush" card being used And are you seriously suggesting that ANYTHING could have been done to stop 911"

That isnt at all what I am saying. Did you not read my post? I was saying blaming Obama for every little thing that happens overseas is "like" blaming Bush for 911. Neither was thier faults. I was defending BUSH

But yes, piling on a non issue, you do remind me of Fox news. Dood, get some perspective. You are posting out of anger, and not even reading what you are posing against.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki