The left owns civil liberties? There's a new one. Particularly when, as here, it comes to things like free speech and freedom of association.
Associations made by a hidden intelligence apparatus are inherently unsound. If there's no light on the process and no defense possible from the person being "tried" then we're no different than the one-sided show trials that dictatorships use to cow their opponents. The only thing that we do differently is hide the skullduggery from the public until the execution has been carried out. The ease of using drones has warped our moral boundaries when it comes to warfare and capital punishment. The 16 year old son of Anwar Al-Awlaki was executed by the US government for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And it wasn't the attack that killed his father either. It was a separate strike. He was an American citizen. If the US is going to use drones against US citizens we should at least have a trial beforehand, with them tried in absentia but with a defense counsel to represent their interests and to at least present the risk that a flawed process would be exposed before somebody pulled the trigger.
The left doesn't own civil liberties, Obama is not on the left with the drone policy. He's way out to the right of Bush, who initiated the policy but had the grace to be queasy about using it like a cheap toy.
And BTW, we've moved from torturing foreign nationals to executing US citizens without due process in a light-second here.
Interestingly, he's right on par with bush: One could assume that if Bush had qualified (or been able to run for) a third term, that the use of drones (and subsequent decrease in apprehensions and "enhanced interrogations") would occur just as it did under Obama. The rapid decrease in civilian deaths either indicates technological improvement or fraudulent statistics: IMO, what's up for debate most is the future of drone use. The first graphic indicates either a retreat from the War on Terror/more efficient use/unraveling of al-Qaeda or a re-focusing from Afghanistan to other regions of the world (namely Yemen and North/West Africa). I'd guess the latter.
There is a process it's called being found guilty of a capital crime and getting a death penalty sentence by a Judge. The problem is I doubt these are killings based on an "imminent threat". More likely these are people on a US hit list who are being tracked found and executed. If we in fact have a targeted hit list and it isn't "imminent" why not try them in absentia while we were hunting them down? My bet would be very few of these droning’s are in fact based on “Imminent threat” and tribunal review or Judicial review would not inhibit our ability to carry out these sentences in the least bit. If we were actually killing these people based on "Imminent threat" I don't think this would be that big a deal. What's apparent is we are killing people going to work, school, funerals, children,women some who might actually be members of Al Qeeda who are not a direct "imminent threat" and the President isn't claiming they are. People who thought Bush and Cheney were creepy as shit as I do don't even realize that Obama has codified the Bush doctrines into law. Personally I trust Obama after all he went to Harvard and studied Constitutional law and is on the side of the uninsured and against the bankers and I'm pretty confident we are in for a long run of good dudes just like him so I guess this is okay?
Meh. Going back to when I first heard about it during my school years, I was never all in on the notion that the Consitution not only extends beyond our shores, but that the fact that one is overseas has no effect on the enforceability of Constitutional rights. As a practical matter, being overseas does, or should, affect the analysis.
Been doing some thinking about it and I think that Obama is not bluffing on the sequester. It would indeed depress the economy if it occurred but it also has real upsides for him. He has agendas, like creating a new energy infrastructure and reworking public education, that are just dying before they ever get to the hill due to the huge deficits and bloated public debt. It'll be almost impossible for him to make major impacts in those areas without a lot of cutting and slashing of the bloated programs in place. The sequester basically is going to force every major government agency from the Pentagon on down to become more efficient as the size of government shrinks in the process. It's a perfect mechanism for him to squeeze the fat out of government where it has accumulated the most over the last decade, without touching the third rail of entitlements at all. I think he wants the sequester and I think he wants it perceived as caused by Republican intransigence. He's not going to make any serious offers to forestall it. He's just going to put enough out there to keep the pot bubbling until the date has passed where anybody can stop it from happening. Then in the summer he's going to bring new ideas to congress in the form of energy and education initiatives that create jobs in the states. He's going to bring those ideas too them through the governors, Republican and Democrat, that are desperate to foster job creation in their rapidly slumping economies. Republicans need to accept the fact that they lost the last election and lost it big time, even with the House majority. They need to figure out how to head off the sequester now because it is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back for them if it goes through.
Making America American Again. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57568695/teen-birth-rates-hit-historic-low-in-u.s/
The rights granted aren't granted to citizens they are restrictions on our government. I don't see how you can make any argument unless we are at war that the US government has the right to carry out sentencing on citizens or none citizens here or abroad without due process of law.
well this thread should get active after the dog/pony show this evening. speaking of dogs, i think i'll turn to the westminster dog show on USA network this evening. at least i'll be guaranteed non-biased and loyal entertainment. enjoy
Discussion of the whole concept of rights occurs within a more general set of practical circumstances and related concepts that also includes the concept of jurisdiction. Persons who are within the jurisdiction of the US are subject to arrest, and the due process requirements and concepts that arise when the government has both practical and theoretical jurisdiction over the person. And of course the concept of personal jurisdiction does not normally end at our shores when we have treaties with other governments, providing for extradition, and again here there are well established principles of due process that apply. And even where persons are beyond the ability of the government to obtain personal jurisdiction over them, as for example if they are located in a country that does not have extradition with the US, the government leaves them alone for the most part, unless... Unless there is a reason NOT to leave them alone. Such as if they are involved in efforts to harm US interests, including the welfare of American citizens. Which seems to precisely describe what we are talking about here. In enforcing the law, we sometimes are faced with different options that flow from competing considerations under the law. If even an American citizen is all of beyond the practical ability to arrest him, engaged in activities which are reasonably likely to at some point cause grievous harm to American citizens or other important interests, and there is available a practical means to get at them in some fashion, the government would be derelict to do nothing. There is after all a duty to protect other Americans as well as a duty to follow due process of law. But going back to your post, you make a false assumption when you say "without due process of law" at the end of your post. In regard to the concept we are discussing, I think there would be adequate due process of law involved if a FISA type court reviewed the basis for a drone strike. IF all other criteria are met, and the only alternative is to do nothing, well, let me tell you, the government will do something, so we might as well try to make the process as rational and fair as we can. Having to choose from a range of distasteful choices is not an excuse, I think, to do nothing, where the likely result will be worse than if the least distasteful option was instead followed. There is a duty to pursue the option that causes the least harm. And to do so as part of a process that is rational and reviewable. If those elements are included, then I think due process has in fact been applied.
You don't sound particularly loyal to the duly elected president of our country when you say that. But of course your "loyalty" is selective. You are only loyal to that which you find pleasing. As long as the GOP and its mindless voters continue to talk about their opponents as dogs, I doubt they will be ascendant in the foreseeable future. So as much as I find it hateful that people like you say such things, I suppose there is more than a silver lining in terms of the practical political effect of your sort of divisive nonsense.
So North Korea set off their third nuclear device yesterday. The Chinese are condemning the test but they're probably secretly delighted that it occurred and they may well have asked North Korea to do the test now. Why? Because the American military and diplomatic apparatus is pivoting towards Asia slowly but inexorably. The Obama administration is continuing the initiative that Bob Gates pressed for and got approval for in the second Bush term. In that light the Chinese are very happy to see the materialization of obvious potential consequences of heavier US involvement in the region. North Korea has acted without explicit Chinese approval and in fact against muted disapproval. That makes their potential use of nuclear weapons against the South a much murkier prospect than it was in the days just passed when we thought the Chinese might be able to rein in North Korea in a crisis. The lesson for the US is that the region is not controllable in the way that US policy makers might have considered it to be just a few days ago. That all of this happened on the eve of a State of the Union address in which President Obama might well be talking about the need to concentrate on the Pacific is no accident.
The opposite is true. More U.S. involvement=more scrutiny in the South China Sea islands dispute. China may support regional interests but they prioritize national interests (chiefly economic) over their neighbors' belligerence.
The South China Sea Islands dispute is happening now for a reason. China is trying to assert itself at exactly the point in time that the US tries to pivot into a broader focus on the region. We should expect to see continual pressure from the Chinese all around the periphery of the South China Sea over the next few years as their growing economic clout turns into a real expansion of their sphere of power. That the Chinese domestic economy is beginning to show signs of faltering is an aggravating factor in that process. The Chinese are going to be looking to focus their citizens attention away from domestic concerns and towards international issues that directly affect the perception of Chinese power and status. What happened with North Korea is a net plus for the Chinese government. They get to appear to be cooperative on the international stage while also presenting another discouraging factor for the US pivot to Asia. The Chinese are probably taking queues from what happened in the Russia-US relationship in 2008 when the Russians invaded Georgia successfully without drawing effective action from the United States in response. Since then the Russians have managed to keep the US at arm's length with a very prickly foreign policy but without losing a lot in the process. They've managed to use Iran very effectively as a wedge issue between the US and the EU. The Chinese would no doubt like to use North Korea in a similar fashion as the US turns their view to the region.
We don't have that review in place and I'm going to bet that if we do it will not apply to human beings generally only to American citizens. FISA review makes sense for all people but it isn't even in place for US citizens. What you believe should be in place isn't in place and is no defense of this policy. The Democratic hand wringing over torture seems to believe torture is somehow worse than actually killing people.
The GOP would complain ten times more loudly if the Obama admin was NOT using drones. I am merely pointing out that due process may be very important, but it is not the only issue here. Torture concerns a different set of circumstances. First of all it is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Second, the circumstances under which it arises as an issue includes that the person involved is within the physical jurisdiction of the government - hence all applicable due process concerns apply. Third and not unimportantly, it is at best of questionable utility in most circumstances. Perhaps all circumstances. None of these things can be said about the use of drones to kill enemies of our country overseas when there is no practical alternative, other than doing nothing. Are you proposing we do nothing?
There is something between nothing and unlimited Presidential power to kill people. As you rightly pointed out in this matter the Republicans are very likely to give the President all the real power to kill enemies real and perceived, citizen and foreign without having to take this burden on his shoulders without real legal backing. Doing nothing is an interesting idea. It might actually be more effective in protecting our country than the obvious collateral damage drone strikes are doing to US interest? Very good point! It’s pretty clear that we lost the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan and Islamic fundamentalism rather than being contained is sweeping over more of the world than ever before. If we actually lived by our own laws and applied them to others it might have a pallitive effect on some of the sicker parts of the world.
