The Government has laid out its justifications for killing you without a trial. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21333570)
QuoteThe legal basis for using drone strikes to kill US citizens has been disclosed in a leaked Justice Department memo.
The undated 16-page Justice Department White Paper published by NBC gives more details of the justification for the use of drones outside recognised war zones.
The paper adopts a broad definition of "imminent threat", saying it is not necessary to produce evidence that a specific attack is being planned if the target is generally engaged in plotting against the US.
QuoteThe paper adopts a broad definition of "imminent threat", saying it is not necessary to produce evidence that a specific attack is being planned if the target is generally engaged in plotting against the US.
Would that include, perhaps, blowing up US citizens by remote control outside of a war zone?
HAW HAW! JUST KIDDING.
Also worth noting, this isn't the actual memo used to authorize the killing of Anwar al-Walaki.
Or rather, I should say memos. Which have been requested repeatedly, and not given.
Quote from: Cain on February 05, 2013, 05:01:59 PM
Also worth noting, this isn't the actual memo used to authorize the killing of Anwar al-Walaki.
Or rather, I should say memos. Which have been requested repeatedly, and not given.
How about Abdulrahman? He seems like the one that would get the most sympathetic rage from the American public.
I believe he wasn't the main target of the strike which killed him.
Which is not to say he wasn't also an intended target (if not the primary target, given my suspicions re: al-Walaki/US intelligence fallout), but, on paper, it was Ibrahim al-Banna.
Yup. Not the actual memo. For some reason the full legal theory remains state secret despite a couple standing FOIA requests.
Also fantastic timing of this "accidentally leaked" document, as a run up to the confirmation hearings of John Brennan for CIA chief.
Here's a fun quote:
QuoteI can find no way around the thicket of laws and precendents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and the laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret...
QuoteThe Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me,
That's from the Federal Judge who upheld the Obama Administration's right to keep secret the legal theory behind targeted assassination.
EDIT: Oh, and in addition to the redefinition of "imminent threat" there's also some liberalities taken with "feasability". Essentially if there's a potential risk to any personnel involved in capturing the subject, then capture is deemed "unfeasible". To be fair, it does enhance the risk to ground personnel to be operating in a nation not in an otherwise authorized theatre of operations...Just look what happened to those poor CIA guys who can't even go to Italy anymore...
SECRET LEGAL THEORY!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAIIIIIIEEEE!
CAN'T...STOP...LAUGHING...
I wonder how secret it is. I'm fairly sure he still doesn't know.
Idea- spam this on right wing boards. They will LOVE it.
There are secret clauses in the Patriot Act, too.
Quote from: Cain on February 07, 2013, 09:24:26 AM
There are secret clauses in the Patriot Act, too.
wait, what?
actual legislation which is incorporated in the USC can be secret?!
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-patriot-act/
QuoteYou think you understand how the Patriot Act allows the government to spy on its citizens. Sen. Ron Wyden says it's worse than you know.
Congress is set to reauthorize three controversial provisions of the surveillance law as early as Thursday. Wyden (D-Oregon) says that powers they grant the government on their face, the government applies a far broader legal interpretation — an interpretation that the government has conveniently classified, so it cannot be publicly assessed or challenged. But one prominent Patriot-watcher asserts that the secret interpretation empowers the government to deploy "dragnets" for massive amounts of information on private citizens; the government portrays its data-collection efforts much differently.
It's kinda like how, in the legal justification set out above, the word "imminent" actually means, uh, "not imminent".
Or how ordering an assassination does not contravene the explicit ban on assassinations.
I LOVE THIS CENTURY! :horrormirth:
got it.
so it's not the code itself, it's just the fact that there has been a distinct separation between the code, and the interpretation of it, which is what is actually acted upon.
so, when there is a court suit brought up where the plaintiff accuses the govt. of acting outside of the law, and the govt. says, "not according to our interpretation", does the court reveal the govt. interpretation? how is that currently handled, given the newspeak we see here?
If it's classified, the court can't release it.
Quote from: Cain on February 07, 2013, 03:12:55 PM
If it's classified, the court can't release it.
but they do get to review it, and then make an official judicial interpretation of the law, right?
"Not knowing the law is no excuse."
:lulz:
right?!
we're a long way from the code being chiseled on a large stone in town square...
:argh!:
that's probably the biggest argument against feeling any moral compulsion to act in accordance with the law. (even that which is explicitly known)
fuck it.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on February 07, 2013, 03:15:03 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 07, 2013, 03:12:55 PM
If it's classified, the court can't release it.
but they do get to review it, and then make an official judicial interpretation of the law, right?
Yes, as far as I know.
However, since in the case of the Patriot Act these are FISA courts, I don't think the courts in question are equipped to interpret the law - only rule whether a particular surveillance warrant is legal or not under the current definition.
If another court wanted to examine the government's decisions, it may not even be allowed access to the secret interpretation.
By the way, you guys also have secret drone bases.
It was recently revealed that the drone attack which killed Anwar al-Walaki came from a previously unknown base in Saudi Arabia.
Who was a CIA Station Chief in Riyadh? John Brennan.
Also revealed - John Brennan was asked by someone outside of the American government (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/04/john-brennan-obama-s-cia-chief-nominee-could-restrain-the-agency.html) to sign off on signature attacks in Yemen. They say the Yemenis, however, I think the Saudis are the more likely instigators.
So in essence you have secret hitmen operating from secret bases with the backing of secret laws, doing the dirty work of the Saudi government, who almost certainly wanted Anwar al-Walaki dead for what he may have known about 9/11 and Saudi intelligence operations in the US in 2000-2001.
Quote from: Cain on February 07, 2013, 03:32:26 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on February 07, 2013, 03:15:03 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 07, 2013, 03:12:55 PM
If it's classified, the court can't release it.
but they do get to review it, and then make an official judicial interpretation of the law, right?
Yes, as far as I know.
However, since in the case of the Patriot Act these are FISA courts, I don't think the courts in question are equipped to interpret the law - only rule whether a particular surveillance warrant is legal or not under the current definition.
If another court wanted to examine the government's decisions, it may not even be allowed access to the secret interpretation.
that would be crazy....
i thought the FISA courts just operated for the govt. to go to in order to get authorization for surveillance. i figured if a citizen brought suit against the govt, then it would go through a standard court rather than a special purpose one.
if a court cant subpoena the interpretation that the govt acted on, i would still think they should have the right to give an official interpretation and the executive would be forced to adhere to it.
but, i'm just guessing based on what seems rational to me, which is rather foolish, i admit.
Quote from: Cain on February 07, 2013, 03:39:23 PM
By the way, you guys also have secret drone bases.
It was recently revealed that the drone attack which killed Anwar al-Walaki came from a previously unknown base in Saudi Arabia.
Who was a CIA Station Chief in Riyadh? John Brennan.
Also revealed - John Brennan was asked by someone outside of the American government (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/04/john-brennan-obama-s-cia-chief-nominee-could-restrain-the-agency.html) to sign off on signature attacks in Yemen. They say the Yemenis, however, I think the Saudis are the more likely instigators.
So in essence you have secret hitmen operating from secret bases with the backing of secret laws, doing the dirty work of the Saudi government, who almost certainly wanted Anwar al-Walaki dead for what he may have known about 9/11 and Saudi intelligence operations in the US in 2000-2001.
...AND the Washington Post and New York Times have both known about those bases for years and sat on the information even as two administrations denied the reports from other news outlets.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on February 07, 2013, 03:42:56 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 07, 2013, 03:32:26 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on February 07, 2013, 03:15:03 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 07, 2013, 03:12:55 PM
If it's classified, the court can't release it.
but they do get to review it, and then make an official judicial interpretation of the law, right?
Yes, as far as I know.
However, since in the case of the Patriot Act these are FISA courts, I don't think the courts in question are equipped to interpret the law - only rule whether a particular surveillance warrant is legal or not under the current definition.
If another court wanted to examine the government's decisions, it may not even be allowed access to the secret interpretation.
that would be crazy....
i thought the FISA courts just operated for the govt. to go to in order to get authorization for surveillance. i figured if a citizen brought suit against the govt, then it would go through a standard court rather than a special purpose one.
if a court cant subpoena the interpretation that the govt acted on, i would still think they should have the right to give an official interpretation and the executive would be forced to adhere to it.
but, i'm just guessing based on what seems rational to me, which is rather foolish, i admit.
My guess is rule 4 would be invoked, which would mean that that particular secret interpretation would not be admissable in any meaningful way. How it's worked in other cases is rule 4 is invoked and then discussed ex-parte between the state and the presiding judge who then comes back and denies the subpoena without presenting any rationale for doing so, thus not presenting the party requesting the subpoena any opportunity to rebut it. As this legal theory is pretty much being treated in the same manner as a piece of material evidence, I can't see why it would be litigated any differently.
Quote from: Cain on February 07, 2013, 03:39:23 PM
By the way, you guys also have secret drone bases.
It was recently revealed that the drone attack which killed Anwar al-Walaki came from a previously unknown base in Saudi Arabia.
Who was a CIA Station Chief in Riyadh? John Brennan.
Also revealed - John Brennan was asked by someone outside of the American government (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/04/john-brennan-obama-s-cia-chief-nominee-could-restrain-the-agency.html) to sign off on signature attacks in Yemen. They say the Yemenis, however, I think the Saudis are the more likely instigators.
So in essence you have secret hitmen operating from secret bases with the backing of secret laws, doing the dirty work of the Saudi government, who almost certainly wanted Anwar al-Walaki dead for what he may have known about 9/11 and Saudi intelligence operations in the US in 2000-2001.
Bump.
Looks like I was
at least half right (http://www.thenation.com/article/173980/inside-americas-dirty-wars?page=full):
QuoteA former senior official in the Obama administration told me that after Abdulrahman's killing, the president was "surprised and upset and wanted an explanation." The former official, who worked on the targeted killing program, said that according to intelligence and Special Operations officials, the target of the strike was al-Banna, the AQAP propagandist. "We had no idea the kid was there. We were told al-Banna was alone," the former official told me. Once it became clear that the teenager had been killed, he added, military and intelligence officials asserted, "It was a mistake, a bad mistake."
QuoteHowever, John Brennan, at the time President Obama's senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security, "suspected that the kid had been killed intentionally and ordered a review. I don't know what happened with the review."
So maybe Brennan wasn't in on the reasons for a set-up. But he seems to know, or suspect, who is and ordered the report investigating it to be buried in some deep black hole somewhere. While I'm inclined to believe that indicates ultimate responsibility lying with Riyadh, the Obama Administration's love of secrecy for its own sake cannot be dismissed as a possible reason.