Thread: Obama Drones

02/05/2013
Government Memo: Obama May Kill Certain U.S. Citizens

Today, that’s restricted to leaders of Al Qaeda or an associated force planning an imminent attack on the U.S. who cannot be captured.

Tomorrow? http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news...americans?lite

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes

Here’s the memo itself (.pdf).

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...hite_Paper.pdf

I haven’t read the memo all the way through, but it’s hard to conclude that a President doesn’t have authority to defend the United States from deadly attack by a terrorist, citizen or no. For example, say it’s reported that a U.S. citizen has hijacked a plane overseas, and has announced his intention to ram it into the Empire State Building on behalf of Al Qaeda. Surely the president can order that plane shot down.

One problem is that the memo does not restrict itself to an imminent attack situation:

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states."

Another problem is that Obama is a liar and I do not trust him. So while I might be OK with what the memo proposes, there is no way for me to be sure he won’t take it further, if he thinks it would benefit him politically. He doesn’t consider himself constrained by little things like budget deadlines. Why would he pass an opportunity to kill a U.S. citizen outside the above guidelines if he thought he could justify it?

RELATED? Iowa farmers complain about drones monitoring their farms:
http://latham.house.gov/news/documen...umentID=299185

Few developments in the news in recent weeks have disturbed me more than what we’re learning about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) using unmanned drone aircraft to monitor Iowa farms. In some cases, we’re learning that the EPA has used the aircraft to gather information on agricultural operations. The simple truth is that no government agency should be able to treat Iowa farmers like the Taliban.

Alarm is growing among many farmers in the Midwest regarding this surveillance operation. They’re justifiably concerned that a government agency may be gathering information on them or their property without their consent or knowledge. Much of this alarm stems from the scarcity of facts we have about these flights. In response, I sent a letter this week to the EPA administrator to get to the bottom of what this aerial surveillance is all about. In my letter, I demanded responses from the EPA on what sort of information is being gathered, how that information is being used, how much these surveillance flights cost and what legal justification they have for conducting them.

I bet U.S. citizens never thought drones would be conducting surveillance on farmers.

It’s not like this guy thinks of himself as above the law or anything, does it?

http://patterico.com/2013/02/05/gove...-u-s-citizens/


Carney: Drone Strikes ‘Legal,’ ‘Ethical,’ ‘Wise’
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
February 5, 2013 1:44 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=CvQq_WG3a20

White House press secretary said Tuesday the administration’s use of drones is “legal,” “ethical,” and “wise,” at a press briefing following remarks by President Obama.

“These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise,” Carney said.

NBC News reported late Monday on an unclassified Department of Justice white paper on the use of drones against American citizens, like al Qaeda operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan.

http://freebeacon.com/carney-drone-s...-ethical-wise/

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

02/05/2013
Government Memo: Obama May Kill Certain U.S. Citizens

Today, that’s restricted to leaders of Al Qaeda or an associated force planning an imminent attack on the U.S. who cannot be captured.

Tomorrow?

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...hite_Paper.pdf

One problem is that the memo does not restrict itself to an imminent attack situation:
http://patterico.com/2013/02/05/gove...-u-s-citizens/

Originally Posted by dv8grl

On Eddie "Piolin" Sotelo, a Hispanic radio personality's show, Piolin questioned how Obama could ask Latinos for their vote when many don't believe he's worked hard to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Obama responded:

'We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us'

PUNISH OUR ENEMIES!!!!! Amazing that THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES hates Americans so much, that he now calls us THE ENEMY!!!!

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...-punished.html

February 05, 2013
Kill Me Now, Or, Obama Bringing People Together

Part of the Obama Administration legal rationale http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us...anted=all&_r=0 for assassinating Americans has been leaked, to bipartisan criticism. http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/02/04...e-looking-for/

The killing of al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki generated a surprising amount of controversy. The US had used drones to kill scores of AQ leaders and followers in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen before Awlaki and afterward. However, Awlaki was a US citizen, and the targeting of an American citizen by the government was considered a new step — and not necessarily a good one. The demand for a controlling procedure began to grow, amplified ironically by Barack Obama himself when the New York Times reported that he tried to rush rules into place for drone use in case Mitt Romney won the election, only to lose interest when it became clear he would win.

Unfortunately, that didn’t stop people from demanding to know how exactly the Obama administration protected the rights of Americans and ensured that a drone strike on a US citizen was undeniably justified. A leak from the Department of Justice makes it clear that it’s not clear at all:

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.

The undated memo is entitled “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.” It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and not discussed publicly.

So let’s just recap. The US can target a US citizen if they believe a threat to be “imminent” even when no threat of attack is immediately present. The target must have recently been involved in activities, with no real definition of “activities” or “recently.” And rather than prove that the US citizen plans to continue these “activities,” it’s up to the citizen to prove to a single US official that no one knows that he’s renounced and/or abandoned such “activities” — activities that the government won’t define, to an official the government won’t name.

Awlaki was an easy case. He publicly and explicitly encouraged terrorist acts, recruited new members to carry them out, and was connected to plots that actually went into action. But this memo goes way beyond the Awlaki instance and basically gives the government carte blanche to target Americans in whatever it considers to be the battlefield for almost any kind of “threat” it imagines.

Surely we can do better than this to find a hard line between the case of Awlaki and no line at all. And surely Congress can press John Brennan about this point during his confirmation hearing to the post of CIA Director.

Posted by Tom Maguire on February 05, 2013 http://www.typepad.com/services/trac...7d40cbeabd970c

Now I get it! If we make the illegal alien or person without status ( ) a citizen, suspect them of terroristic thoughts....we can then shoot them! If we keep them without status, then we have to support them, provide medical care, keep them in GITMO or whatever motel/hotel at the time forever. Immigration reform and terrorism handled in a nut shell. Obama he's my man! and we thought he was just out skeet shootin' & having beers on the White House lawn.




ETA: I just realized the cherry on top! This plan also helps the economy as it will lighten the load of members in the entitlement system and ease the burden of healthcare costs. Make them legal and shoot them please!

City First to Ban Drones in Sky
Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Charlottesville, Va., has become the first city in the United States to formally pass an anti-drone resolution.


The resolution, passed Monday, “calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt legislation prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court,” and “pledges to abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones.”

The resolution passed by a 3-2 vote and was brought to the city council by activist David Swanson and the Rutherford Institute, a progressive civil liberties group based in the city. The measure also endorses a proposed two-year moratorium on drones in Virginia.

Councilmember Dede Smith, who voted in favor of the bill, says that drones are “pretty clearly a threat to our constitutional right to privacy.”

http://patriotupdate.com/2013/02/cit...#ixzz2K4kT44Kk

City in Virginia Becomes First to Pass Anti-Drone Legislation
Resolution bans all municipal agencies from buying or leasing drones
By Jason Koebler

Charlottesville, Va., has become the first city in the United States to formally pass an anti-drone resolution.

The resolution, passed Monday, "calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt legislation prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court," and "pledges to abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones."

The resolution passed by a 3-2 vote and was brought to the city council by activist David Swanson and the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group based in the city. The measure also endorses a proposed two-year moratorium on drones in Virginia.

Councilmember Dede Smith, who voted in favor of the bill, says that drones are "pretty clearly a threat to our constitutional right to privacy."

"If we don't get out ahead of it to establish some guidelines for how drones are used, they will be used in a very invasive way and we'll be left to try and pick up the pieces," she says.



The passed resolution is much less restrictive than the draft Swanson originally introduced, which would have sought to declare the city a "No Drone Zone" and would have tried to banned all drones over Charlottesville airspace "to the extent compatible with federal law." The draft would have also banned all Charlottesville municipal agencies from buying, leasing, borrowing, or testing any drones.

Councilmember Dave Norris says the city has a "long tradition of promoting civil liberties."

"It's just part of our culture here," he says.

Charlottesville is located 120 miles southwest of Washington, D.C., and has a population of about 43,000. The city is home to the University of Virginia, which has not tried to obtain a waiver to test drones from the Federal Aviation Administration.

The move earned praise from the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Amie Stepanovich, a lawyer with the group, says that the "Charlottesville resolution demonstrates that people care about protecting their civil liberties and Fourth Amendment rights and are willing to devote the time necessary to closely examine this issue."

"Lawmakers should be looking at [drone privacy] issues now in order to ensure that there are safeguards in place to protect individual privacy from these invasive technologies," she says.

Smith admits that the final legislation won't do anything to prevent federal- or state-operated drones from operating over Charlottesville's skies, but that the symbolic move could push other cities to follow suit.

"With a lot of these resolutions, although they don't have a lot of teeth to them, they can inspire other governments to pass similar measures," she says. "You can get a critical mass and then it does have influence. One doesn't do much, but a thousand of them might. We want this on [federal and state lawmakers'] radars."

Vice Mayor Kristin Szakos, who voted against the resolution, says she "can imagine ways in which drones might be used for positive things" and that the move was premature.

"I think drones have been used for bad things, but it's like banning airplanes because they can drop bombs," she says. "At this point, the city isn't even talking about using drones. It seems premature to me to ban them altogether."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...e-legislation-

The White House is trying to distance themselves from their own Justice Department (my dog did a great impression of that earlier when he tried to outrun his tail). http://twitchy.com/2013/02/05/unreal...stice-it-runs/

Maybe it’s all part of a master plan to arm drones with ambiguity and carpet bomb our enemies with baffling mixed messages:

Mark Knoller ✔ @markknoller

WH defends use of drones to kill Americans abroad suspected of terrorist activity,
... but still against use of waterboarding for interrogation.
7:47 PM - 05 Feb 13

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrW4f...layer_embedded



http://www.mrctv.org/embed/119801






Drone is Obama's weapon of choice
By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst, and Megan Braun, Special to CNN
updated 10:37 AM EDT, Wed September 19, 2012

CNN) -- Covert drone strikes are one of President Obama's key national security policies. He has already authorized 283 strikes in Pakistan, six times more than the number during President George W. Bush's eight years in office.

As a result, the number of estimated deaths from the Obama administration's drone strikes is more than four times what it was during the Bush administration -- somewhere between 1,494 and 2,618.

Under Obama, the drone campaign, which during the Bush administration had put emphasis on killing significant members of al Qaeda, has undergone a quiet and unheralded shift to focus increasingly on killing Taliban foot soldiers.

To the extent that the targets of drone attacks can be ascertained, under Bush, al Qaeda members accounted for 25% of all drone targets compared to 40% for Taliban targets. Under Obama, only 8% of targets were al Qaeda compared to just over 50% for Taliban targets.

And while under Bush, about a third of all drone strikes killed a militant leader, compared to less than 13% since President Obama took office, according to an analysis of thousands of credible media reports about the strikes undertaken by the New America Foundation.

While Bush sought to decapitate the leadership ranks of al Qaeda, Obama seems to be aiming also to collapse the entire network of allied groups, such as the Pakistani Taliban.

As a result, so-called "signature strikes" have become a hallmark of Obama's drone war. These are drone attacks based on patterns of merely suspicious activity by a group of men, rather than the identification of a particular individual militant.

These have decimated the ranks of low-level combatants, killing somewhere between 1,332 to 2,326 reported militants. In April 2010, a militant told a New York Times reporter, "It seems they really want to kill everyone, not just the leaders."

Obama's drone campaign is quite controversial: Some claim that a substantial number of civilians are killed in the attacks, while U.S. government officials assert that the civilian casualty rate is now zero.

In Pakistan, the program is deeply unpopular and the Pakistani parliament voted in April to end any authorization for the program, a vote that the United States government has simply ignored.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/opinio...en-obama-drone

**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2013/02/05...-constitution/

February 5, 2013 by Tim Brown

Obama DOJ: We Don’t Need Clear Evidence To Kill Americans With Drones



Tribesmen this week examine the rubble of a building in southeastern Yemen where American teenager Abdulrahmen al-Awlaki and six suspected al-Qaida militants were killed in a U.S. drone strike on Oct. 14, 2011. Al-Awlaki, 16, was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who died in a similar strike two weeks earlier.

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” reads a confidential Justice Department memo defending the U.S. government’s ability to order the killing of American citizens if they believe them to be “senior operational leaders” or “an associated force,” even if they don’t have any evidence that the person targeted is actually engaged in or plotting an attack on the U.S.

All of the controversy stemmed from the September 2011 drone strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

The “kill list” was affirmed last year as then Obama’s assassination czar, John Brennan, was appointed. http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/05/ba...sination-czar/ Now that same Brennan, who was a key architect in the drone campaign, has now been appointed by Obama as the new head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), following David Petraeus’ resignation. http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/ob...-new-cia-head/

The memo states that “no clear evidence of a specific attack on persons and interests” is needed, nor does the “operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States” in order to be targeted for assassination by the Federal government.

“This conclusion is reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal operation by the United States against a U.S. citizen, and also of the extraordinary seriousness of the threat posed by senior operational al Qaeda members and the loss of life that would result were their operations successful,” the memo reads.

It gets worse.

Michael Isikoff points out the following: http://vigapi.tynt.com/api/click?for...13601729047402

As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.

The undated memo is entitled “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.” It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and not discussed publicly.

Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly — or even publicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is not classified, provided a copy to NBC News.

Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in an interview with NBC said the document was “chilling.”

“Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated,” Jaffer said.

Justin Sink recalls, http://vigapi.tynt.com/api/click?for...13601731534713

“In November, the New York Times reported that the White House was working to codify rules to govern the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones. The codification work was begun during last year’s presidential election. According to the report, the Obama administration wanted to provide Mitt Romney with a clear set of procedures and standards for the use of drone strikes, were he to be elected.”

“The president himself has spoken publicly about the need to better codify the use of drone strikes,” he writes.

“One of the things we’ve got to do is put a legal architecture in place,” he continued, “and we need Congressional help in order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in but any president’s reined in terms of some of the decisions that we’re making,” Obama said during an appearance on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” shortly before the election.”

There is something in place. It’s called the Constitution, something Barack Obama and members of Congress swore to support and defend. Specifically it’s called the Sixth Amendment that is being violated here. I realize that many people will scream about “terrorists” and all sorts of things, but the issue is that this administration and its thug partners are already defining those who believe that the Federal government is “too big for its britches” and are overstepping their bounds as “domestic terrorists.” http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/fe...citys-streets/

Sadly, many Republicans like Representative Peter King (R-NY) who serves as the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee calls Obama’s kill list “totally right and totally constitutional.” http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/10/ob...or-centerpiece

Additionally, our public education system is beginning the indoctrination of who is and is not a terrorist. The y are doing it by teaching that those that engaged in the Boston Tea Party were terrorists. Even our own government training agents that the Founding Fathers were terrorists.

In addition, I would like to point out the hypocrisy of those making the decisions to murder those who have not engaged in any acts of terrorism nor have they been proven to actually be plotting attacks on the United States. These same people within the Obama administration have supplied aid to the organization they say they are opposed to in Libya and more than likely in Syria, yet they do not target themselves, do they? No, they hide behind executive privilege and government charades.

We don’t see them coming clean on matters where they have put weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels that have resulted in the deaths of untold numbers of Mexicans and at least two federal agents.

This is not just chilling, it’s unlawful. It’s unconstitutional. It’s a mockery of our Constitution and before you say that you would never find yourself on the presidential “hit list,” perhaps you should consider the open talk of assassination by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as he told CBS’ 60 Minutes, http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/02/ar...nts-kill-list/

“If someone is a citizen of the United States and is a terrorist (I’ll note, is not proved to be a terrorist, just claimed to be one by the government) who wants to attack our people and kill Americans (again that would make a person a suspect and should be innocent until proven guilty) in ‘my book’ that person is a terrorist.”

I point this out because Panetta openly claims that the Federal government can bypass the Constitution and just do whatever they want to American citizens. How long before they start targeting State militia groups, true patriots, those that believe in the Second Amendment (contrary to Jesse Jackson’s claims http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/fe...citys-streets/ ), and even those opposed to the Obamacare mandate? How long before those “bitter clingers” of religion and guns are targeted as terrorists? Think about it.


Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/ob...#ixzz2K8tTtC4n

2/5/2013
More Reason to Worry About a Slippery Slope From the Assassination Memo
Patterico @ 8:56 pm


Think it’s crazy to worry about a slippery slope when a memo tells Barack Obama he’s good to kill American citizens who aren’t imminently about to attack the United States? http://patterico.com/2013/02/05/gove...-u-s-citizens/

What if the U.S. citizen is a 16-year-old whose crime is having a terrorist dad?

Now, I can hear you saying: “hey, if the 16-year-old happens to be standing right next to his terrorist dad when we kill the dad . . .” If that’s what you’re thinking, stop. It’s not entirely clear what did happen . . . but it’s clear that’s not what happened:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...erican/264028/

He was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was also born in America, who was also an American citizen, and who was killed by drone two weeks before his son was, along with another American citizen named Samir Khan. Of course, both Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were, at the very least, traitors to their country — they had both gone to Yemen and taken up with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and al-Awlaki had proven himself an expert inciter of those with murderous designs against America and Americans: the rare man of words who could be said to have a body count. When he was killed, on September 30, 2011, President Obama made a speech about it; a few months later, when the Obama administraton’s public-relations campaign about its embrace of what has come to be called “targeted killing” reached its climax in a front-page story in the New York Times that presented the President of the United States as the last word in deciding who lives and who dies, he was quoted as saying that the decision to put Anwar al-Awlaki on the kill list — and then to kill him — was “an easy one.”

But Abdulrahman al-Awlaki wasn’t on an American kill list.

Nor was he a member of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Penin[su]la. Nor was he “an inspiration,” as his father styled himself, for those determined to draw American blood; nor had he gone “operational,” as American authorities said his father had, in drawing up plots against Americans and American interests.

He was a boy who hadn’t seen his father in two years, since his father had gone into hiding. He was a boy who knew his father was on an American kill list and who snuck out of his family’s home in the early morning hours of September 4, 2011, to try to find him. He was a boy who was still searching for his father when his father was killed, and who, on the night he himself was killed, was saying goodbye to the second cousin with whom he’d lived while on his search, and the friends he’d made. He was a boy among boys, then; a boy among boys eating dinner by an open fire along the side of a road when an American drone came out of the sky and fired the missiles that killed them all.

I would need to know more about this attack to know whether to be outraged by the attack. Maybe he was collateral damage to an attack on another terrorist. Here’s the problem, and here is what is certainly cause for outrage: the spokesman for this administration is willing to justify it as the fruits of his dad’s decision to be a terrorist. Watch at 1:56: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=7MwB2znBZ1g

Quotable:

ADAMSON: …It’s an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he’s underage. He’s a minor.

GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.

Conor Friedersdorf: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...erican/264028/

Again, note that this kid wasn’t killed in the same drone strike as his father. He was hit by a drone strike elsewhere, and by the time he was killed, his father had already been dead for two weeks.

Gibbs nevertheless defends the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists. Killing an American citizen without due process on that logic ought to be grounds for impeachment.

Is that the real answer? Or would the Obama Administration like to clarify its reasoning? Any Congress that respected its oversight responsibilities would get to the bottom of this.

See? If they think they can come up with a cute sound bite to justify it, they’ll try literally anything. They’ll look you in the eye and say it’s OK to kill a kid because his dad’s a terrorist. That may not be what happened, but that is the position that this idiot Gibbs is defending.

Glenn Greenwald has more on the memo and what makes it worrisome. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-list-doj-memo I think we have to apply to Obama the same standards we would apply to such a law under Bush. To me, at first glance, the idea that a single official can make a decision when there is no imminent threat sounds unAmerican. Where are the checks and balances?

If a president would need a warrant to wiretap American citizens, presumably he should need a warrant to, um, kill them.

http://patterico.com/2013/02/05/more...sination-memo/

6 February 2013
CIA operating drone base in Saudi Arabia, US media reveal

The US Central Intelligence Agency has been operating a secret airbase for unmanned drones in Saudi Arabia for the past two years.

The facility was established to hunt for members of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is based in Yemen.

A drone flown from there was used in September 2011 to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born cleric who was alleged to be AQAP's external operations chief.

US media have known of its existence since then, but have not reported it.

Senior government officials had said they were concerned that disclosure would undermine operations against AQAP, as well as potentially damage counter-terrorism collaboration with Saudi Arabia.

'High-value targets'

The US military pulled out virtually all of its troops from Saudi Arabia in 2003, having stationed between 5,000 and 10,000 troops in the Gulf kingdom after the 1991 Gulf war. Only personnel from the United States Military Training Mission (USMTM) officially remain.


he Washington Post reported that President Barack Obama's counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan, a former CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia, played a key role in negotiations with the government in Riyadh over building the drone base.

Senators are expected to ask Mr Brennan about drone strikes, the memo and the killing of Awlaki when he faces a confirmation hearing on his nomination to become the new CIA director on Thursday.

The location of the secret drone base was not revealed in the US reports.

However, construction was ordered after a December 2009 cruise missile strike in Yemen, according to the New York Times.

It was the first strike ordered by the Obama administration, and ended in disaster, with dozens of civilians, including women and children, killed.

US officials told the newspaper that the first time the CIA used the secret facility was to kill Awlaki.

Since then, the CIA has been "given the mission of hunting and killing 'high-value targets' in Yemen" - the leaders of AQAP who government lawyers had determined posed a direct threat to the US - the officials added.

The New York Times published its report on Tuesday night, ending an "informal arrangement" among several news organisations not to disclose the location of the base.

News organisations had been complying with a request from Obama administration officials, who said it might undermine operations and collaboration with Saudi Arabia, the Washington Post reported.

Two other Americans, including Awlaki's 16-year-old son, have also been killed in US strikes in Yemen, which can reportedly be launched without the permission of the country's government.

Kristian Coates-Ulrichsen, an expert on Gulf politics at the London School of Economics, told the BBC that Saudi anxieties about the growing threat of AQAP would have been behind the government's decision to allow the US to fly drones from inside the kingdom.

"The Saudis see AQAP as a very real threat to their domestic security," he said. "They are worried about attacks on their energy infrastructure and on the royal family, so it fit their strategy to allow the drone attacks."

The existence of the base was likely a "sensitive issue" for both Washington and Riyadh, Mr Coates-Ulrichsen added.

Leaked memo

A source close to the Saudi Interior Minister, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, declined to comment when contacted by the BBC.

Saudi Arabia is home to some of Islam's holiest sites and the deployment of US forces there was seen as a historic betrayal by many Islamists, notably the late leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden.

It was one of the main reasons given by the Saudi-born militant to justify violence against the US and its allies.

The revelation of the drone base came shortly after the leaking of a US justice department memo detailing the Obama administration's case for killing any American abroad who is accused of being a "senior, operational leader" of al-Qaeda or its allies.

Lethal force is lawful if they are deemed to pose an "imminent threat" and their capture is not feasible, the memo says.

The threat does not have to be based on intelligence about a specific attack, since such actions are being "continually" planned by al-Qaeda, it adds.

NBC News said it was given to members of the US Senate intelligence and judiciary committees as a summary of a classified memo on the targeted killings of US citizens prepared by the justice department.

The latter memo was written before the drone strike that killed Awlaki.

Under President Obama, the US has expanded its use of drones to kill hundreds of al-Qaeda suspects in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. It says it is acting in self-defence in accordance with international law.

Critics argue the drone strikes amount to execution without trial and cause many civilian casualties.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21350437

Bill Law Gulf analyst, BBC News

The revelation that US drone strikes against militants in Yemen have been launched from a secret base inside Saudi Arabia will be an embarrassment for the government in Riyadh.

King Abdullah has embarked upon a gradual process of reform in the face of a conservative religious elite who strongly object to the presence of foreign non-Muslim troops in the country.

Saudi Arabia is home to Islam's two holiest sites and the deployment of US forces there in the 1990s was seen as an historic betrayal. The campaign for their withdrawal became a rallying cry for al-Qaeda and its late Saudi-born leader, Osama bin Laden.

Liberal drone David Frum frets over President Obama’s ‘heavy, heavy burden’
Posted at 9:03 pm on February 6, 2013 by Twitchy Staff

davidfrum @davidfrum

If a Union sniper had killed Robert E. Lee without a jury trial first, would that have been a war crime?

10:49 PM - 05 Feb 13

Once upon a time, David Frum could market himself as a conservative and actually give people reason to believe him. That time is long gone. He’s now a proud member of the Media Lapdog Circus, performing jaw-dropping feats of intellectual contortion in order to justify President Obama’s drone strike policy.

davidfrum @davidfrum

The Italian cities US bombed in WW2 were home to hundreds if not thousands of US citizens.

10:49 PM - 05 Feb 13

davidfrum @davidfrum

The practical alternative to drones isn't jury trials.
It's leaving US passport carrying terrorists alone unharmed to execute their plans

10:53 PM - 05 Feb 13

davidfrum @davidfrum

Lawyers have enough to do running the legal system.
Putting them also in charge of US wars is judicial over-reach of extremest kind

10:55 PM - 05 Feb 13

davidfrum @davidfrum

And of course there is accountability.
It's called the political system.
Not everything is for judges to decide.

10:57 PM - 05 Feb 13

davidfrum @davidfrum

@conor64 There are no secrets here.
President Obama is one bad drone attack away from impeachment, and he knows it.

11:00 PM - 05 Feb 13

davidfrum @davidfrum

Congress could repeal the authorization of force against al Qaeda.
Congress could defund the drone program.
Congress can subpoena.

11:06 PM - 05 Feb 13

davidfrum @davidfrum

Congress DOESNT do those things. We're in this war together.
And President Obama is the executive responsible - a heavy, heavy burden.

11:07 PM - 05 Feb 13

O, woe is the Lightbringer with his “heavy, heavy burden” of responsibility! We need a hanky.

davidfrum @davidfrum

When there's evidence - or even a plausible contention - that President Obama has abused his war powers, let's talk.

11:15 PM - 05 Feb 13

Puh-leeeze. David Frum isn’t interested in talking with anyone who wants to discuss the truth. Even über-lefty Glenn Greenwald called him out:

Glenn Greenwald ✔ @ggreenwald

@davidfrum The whole thing is secert. How would abuse be discovered?
Plus, who proved his targets are guilty of anything?

11:51 PM - 05 Feb 13

http://twitchy.com/2013/02/06/libera...-heavy-burden/