Granted, but the fact that people ask for something doesn't mean they have any right to get it.

Again, this whole bit of concern trolling implies that Obama withheld the proof. He presented his birth certificate in June of 2008, before he was even President.

Brief googling indicates that Hillary activists started floating birtherism in April of that year. So yes, it did take Obama like 6 or 7 weeks to prove it. Then he did that. And it wasn't good enough. Then he proved it again. Still not good enough.

"The Obama administration on Monday plans to outline how U.S. laws empower the government to kill Americans overseas who engage in terrorism against their home country, a source familiar with the matter said, months after a drone strike killed a U.S.-born cleric who plotted attacks from Yemen."

I wonder how well it will go.

Popcorn.gif

Are they finally releasing the legal memo or is Holder just going to explain it?

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...ue_process.php

Holder Just explained it. I find it unsatisfactory and they really need to out the information if it isn't pertinent to national security anymore.

Cliffs
- Due process does not equal judicial process
- Being an American Citizen does not exclude you from being a targeted killing
- All targeted killings must fulfill the following requirements
1) Pose an imminent threat of violence
2) Could not feasibly be captured
3) Operation conducted in line with war principles

Something else that i though was interesting was that all members of congress are notified of the killings and the legal framework behind them.

He didn't say all members of Congress were notified he said the appropriate members were according to lawfare.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/03/h...th-commentary/

Don't forget that the executive decides if the requirements are fulfilled. Process or not, this is pretty terrible. I think even suzzer will agree.

No matter what Holder says, I'd find it hard to believe that the Administration truly believed that an "executive review" of the facts at hand was sufficient process to justify a targeted killing. I mean, this is after a series of cases from '04 to '08 where the government lost every time, and those cases involved military tribunals set up to weigh the grounds for detention. The government lost every time they did one of these balancing tests, and that was with the interest in not being DETAINED on one end of the scale. Reconciling this killing with those cases looks like this:

Step 1 - add the loss of a life to the individual liberty side of the scale
Step 2 - ?????
Step 3 - We don't need a neutral decision maker anymore! Just make sure the representative of the governmental interests side of the scale double checks their work.

This all seems like an excuse, not an explanation.

If the executive thinking extra hard about it counts as due process then due process is a meaningless term, that's horrific.

That's some real Nixonian "it's not illegal when the President does it" ****.

"It's not unlawful because we say it's not unlawful"

lol! That is some sweet logic. It can't be an assassination, because we say it isn't.

They would be much better off admitting it is an assassination and justifying it.

This seems like a poor comparison. We are talking about someone who isn't able to be captured and poses an imminent threat not someone who is in custody.

I also agree. This is a pretty horrible way of doing things. The best way to avoid the same situation in the future would be to outline penalties for combatants/militants since it seems to be very very poorly defined.

I think the administration is being reasonable. The target has to be at least:

(i) located abroad rather than in the United States,

(ii) has a senior operational role

(iii) with al Qaeda or an al Qaeda-associated force,

(iv) is involved in plotting focused on the death of Americans in particular,

(v) that threat is “imminent” in the sense that this is the last clear window of opportunity to strike,

(vi) there is no feasible option for capture without undue risk, and

(vii) the strike will comply with the IHL principles of necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity.

As long as there is no oversight and the executive himself decides if the requirements are met isn't it irrelevant what the requirements are?

I do not like this "targeted killing of Americans" anymore than the next guy, but trials are not really a substantive argument, if that is what you are talking about. I've know a few instances information was withheld from trial due to national security concerns.

The actual rules/standards are irrelevant as long as the person deciding whether or not they are met is the same guy who orders the assassinations. The rules are clearly being made up as the killing goes along.

Beyond terrible, and it probably won't even make it into a Federal courtroom because who has standing to challenge it? And even if by some miracle somebody gets that far, I'm sure NATIONAL SECURITY STATE SECRETS will shut things down.

Yeah I wouldn't argue for conventional trials. Even in those cases where the accused could be detained, a trial wasn't necessary for reasons such as avoiding the leaking of confidential information, bringing important personnel back from overseas to testify, etc. But they did envision some sort of process that hasn't been completely clarified in which the detainee can challenge their status in front of a neutral decision maker, then possibly contest findings of fact in an American court.

But those were different than this situation because Al-Awaki was un-capturable. I'm sure the government would argue that he was also more dangerous. Even so, some sort of ex parte proceeding, or even ANYTHING that incorporates a neutral party, would be a step in the right direction.

This would be a reasonable set of standards on their face, but what about when President Bachmann is the final judge and jury as to what they mean?

Also I haven't read any real discussion in here on the president apologizing for the koran burning incident.

I've heard a bunch of republicans politicians yelling about it, mostly because it's something the president did but it's keeping with gop foreign policy which seems to be that the we should just kind of go around acting like jerks.

Some observers may say that this list seems an awful lot like a list of factors made up after the fact to justify the Al-waki assassination rather than something that was organically designed and then was eventually applied to the facts of the Al-waki strike.

Obama fist bumps all around

Nothing can be certain until the program details are made public. :/