Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012

Awlaki was certainly a murderous character; his YouTube videos alone would likely convict him at a jury trial.

huh?

btwn reading The Corner and the comments on anything else, you're really a spendthrift with that time, Sotosyn.

I'm single – I have a lot of time to read many things.

I get so angry when I read Holder's explanation of how this is justified and you don't gotta worry because there was "careful government review" before the American citizen was assassinated without trial

one of Amy Davidson's finest posts relevant, here:

Brennan and other officials interviewed by the Times and Newsweek said that Obama had enormous faith in himself. It would be more responsible, though, if he had less—if he thought that he was no better than any other President we’ve had or ever will. The point isn’t just the task, or burden, he takes on, but the machine he has built for his successors to use. Perhaps, just to suggest a range, he could picture each of the Republican contenders from this past season being walked through the process, told how it works, shown some of those video clips with tiny people and big explosions, and taking it for a test drive. Never mind whether Obama, in particular, sighs or loses sleeps or tosses a coin when he chooses a target: What would it mean for a bad, or craven, or simply carelessly accommodating President to do so? In the end we are not really being asked to trust Obama, or his niceness, but the office of the Presidency. Do we?

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/05/the-presidents-kill-list.html#ixzz22mQlYcpZ

x-post-Plus I think Holder advocates some convoluted take on what "due process" means

I wonder if the referenced book by a writer from Newsweek will focus more attention on this issue?

Maybe a little

uuuuugh

The point isn’t justAT ALL the task, or burden, he takes on, but the machine he has built for his successors to use.

The precedent is worrisome to be sure, but how shall we work out a good compromise between a due process that actually contains some accountability if a craven executive just decides to drone out his enemies and the means to actually act quickly and decisively if an American citizen is actively carrying out a plan that would harm American or allied interests or ppl? I mean, cops kill ppl all the time during the course of criminal activity, and it is rightly justifiable if they can prove that they were threatened or other ppl were threatened. Should the CIC be held to higher standard? Should there be some kind of judicial or congressional notification process when the Pres decides to take ppl out? Does that imfringe on his prerogatives as CIC? I've not heard a real debate on this, just partisan bickering on one side or the other and we really need some deliberative discussion on this.

As noted way upthread, some bloggers have suggested that a FISA like court play a role (although they have acknowledged that the FISA court is largely a rubberstamp for electronic surveillance. But there's aren't nearly enough folks in Congress today who would support that or a President who would agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

So for fear of having something unwieldly or too onerous, we're just going to subvert the Constitution and everybody's going to just meekly go along? This is how Republics fail, by being too lazy to keep to their own standards.

welcome to the post-terror age

what partisan bickering? The hardest-core Dems say "I trust my hero" and any GOP objections will dry up when one of theirs is tossing the darts.

Interestingly, some GOP object now, but that's only because they have to disagree with Obama, and thus they suggest that Obama should be capturing and torturing and detaining folks to get more info, rather than killing them by drones

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel/2012/08/03/03-barack-obama-birthday-cake-gop.o.jpg/a_560x375.jpg

I've not heard a real debate on this, just partisan bickering on one side or the other and we really need some deliberative discussion on this.

one problem is that any 'discussion' is seen as capitulation by the ppl most concerned about civil liberties.

Why discuss drones and the Constitution when you can talk about Harry Reid:

On the Sunday talk shows, Republicans expressed outrage over Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) unsubstantiated claim that Mitt Romney has not paid taxes in 10 years, flatly accusing the Senate majority leader of lying.

On ABC’s “This Week,” an incensed Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called Reid a “dirty liar,” saying he “complains about people with money but lives in the Ritz Carlton here down the street.”

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/republicans-reince-priebus-harry-reid-dirty-liar-romney-taxes.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
“It’s ridiculous, it’s wrong, it’s untrue, and it’s just going to hurt the president,” he said of the claim, accusing President Obama of inciting “division and hatred.”

c'mon Mittens, be as transparent as the secret-kill-list guy.

one problem is that any 'discussion' is seen as capitulation by the ppl most concerned about civil liberties.

― Mordy, Monday, August 6, 2012 6:01 PM (1 hour ago)

not really seeing this -- most of the mainstream articles i've seen have expressed unease and discomfort with the ethical and constitutional ramifications of o's assassination policy, not outright condemnation.

Find out the neighbors' political affiliation in seconds!

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/06/is_your_neighbor_a_democrat_obama_has_an_app_for_that_salpart/

Funny

x-post

Would folks like Greenwald oppose a quasi-judicial/FISA Court mechanism and say that Americans abroad in a country we have not declared war on should have to be indicted and given due process rights; and incorporating some quasi judicial mechanism without due process is unconstitutional

i would say probably yes

the fact that we execute them without even TRYING to take them alive and put them on trial is the problem imho

like, okay, you killed dude resisting arrest in a foreign country, eh I'm not gonna lose too much sleep - but that's very different from killing someone (and a bunch of innocent bystanders) with a robot from a million miles away

Bbbbb....But's that putting American soldiers in danger and creating a political situation--American soldiers on a mission in Yemen who we are not at war with.

expediency is often the enemy of justic

justice even

Countdown to militias 3D printing their own flying death robots.

x-post--The military and CIA would say it's not about expediency its about not risking the lives of American troops when they do not have to (Holder & Justice have given them the comfort to believe so with the memos decreeing constitutionality).

that... is a form of expediency, or maybe convenience is a better word

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/07/unrestrained_savagery/

Greenwald on Al Queda in Yemen and the US CIA both targeting folks attending funerals

that... is a form of expediency, or maybe convenience is a better word

Give me convenience, ... and give me death!

The Huffington Post ‏@HuffPostFeed
Obama Outlaws Protests At Funerals, Says Bombing Them "More Dignified"

I lol'd

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/us/politics/obama-is-an-avid-reader-and-critic-of-news-media-coverage.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120808

As president, however, he has come to believe the news media have had a role in frustrating his ambitions to change the terms of the country’s political discussion. He particularly believes that Democrats do not receive enough credit for their willingness to accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security, while Republicans oppose almost any tax increase to reduce the deficit.

Um Mr. President, most Democrats do not want to cut Medicare and Social Security and certainly do not want credit for it. I think you have been reading too much Tom Friedman and David Brooks and not enough Digby. If you add some different selection to your I-Pad you would learn about ways to reform Social Security and Medicare without going after the middle and working class

I'm sorry I haven't given the prez enough credit for his rare courage in supporting cuts to SS and Medicare.

I think you have been reading too much Tom Friedman and David Brooks and not enough Digby.

this is self-parody now right

this entire thread is self-parody!

can you really ever read too much david brooks? i mean really.

the way the nyt article addresses false balance is kind of hilarious:

Privately and publicly, Mr. Obama has articulated what he sees as two overarching problems: coverage that focuses on political winners and losers rather than substance; and a “false balance,” in which two opposing sides are given equal weight regardless of the facts.

...The term “false balance,” which has been embraced by many Democrats, emerged in academic papers in the 1990s to describe global-warming coverage.

“I believe this type of ‘accuracy’ and ‘balance’ are a huge thing afflicting contemporary media,” said Josh Marshall, editor and publisher of the left-leaning Web site Talking Points Memo.

Conservative pundits see things differently. “Obama is used to the press cheerleading for him so any time a story gets reported straight he’s likely to think it represents a false equivalency,” said John H. Hinderaker, a Minneapolis lawyer behind Power Line, a conservative political Web site.

so, in the part of the article that focuses on false balance, the author quotes two people, one from each side of the argument, without any substance that might provide the reader some sort of information upon which to make a judgment.

LOL

dying actually

oh man

he was THIS CLOSE to actually providing some sort of substance, too! he mentions that academics and experts agree that false balance is a problem. surely there's some sort of study or set of data that provides evidence? but no, it would be better just to get josh marshall to say it's a problem and some conservative asshole to say the opposite.

see? balance!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QER_yqTcmjM

i would've disagreed before i read this (re 'false balance' in media criticism), but shafer otm here: http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/08/09/president-obama’s-imbalanced-view-on-journalism

hey guys, the US public rebelled when the media kept saying Reagan was uttering blatant falsehoods in '81. Hence, Nu Balance.

i would've disagreed before i read this (re 'false balance' in media criticism)

really?

i don't think schafer really 'gets' what false balance is