Senators inquiries

[Gerard]

I have these CNN notifications for breaking news on my e-mail. I just got this:

The full Senate has voted 63-34 to confirm John Brennan as CIA director.


Brennan's nomination, which was approved earlier by the Senate Intelligence Committee, had been held up by GOP Sen. Rand Paul, who launched a nearly 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor on Wednesday. Paul has since told CNN's Dana Bash that he is satisfied with Attorney General Eric Holder's response to him today that the president does not have the authority to use drones to kill an American citizen not engaged in combat on American soil.


Paul said he would no longer block a vote on Brennan's nomination, clearing the way for today's final Senate vote.


In a brief letter responding to Paul's question, "Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" Holder responded, "The answer to that question is no."

One wonders what these people's priorities actually are........

Gerard

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Score political points among their rabid, rightwingnut base and NOTHING MORE..

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The idea that the president shouldn't have the authority to use armed drones against us is a pretty rabid and crazy idea.

[Davka]

Next thing you know, that lunatic Paul will be challenging warrantless wiretaps.

I wish.

[Colanth]

The idea that the president shouldn't have the authority to use armed drones against us is a pretty rabid and crazy idea.

So is the idea that the president shouldn't have the authority to rob banks, hold up people in the street and fire a pistol into a crowd.  But I'd seriously question the sanity of anyone but a congresscritter who questioned any of them also.

[billhilly]

Yes but the attorney general didn't recently come out with a memo saying the president could rob banks in "extraordinary circumstances".  Anyway, they "clarified" the issue today.  I wonder why?

[Thumpalumpacus]

By Michael Isikoff
National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News

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.  

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.

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.

"This is a chilling document," said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans.  "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."

In particular, Jaffer said, the memo "redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning."  

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the white paper. The spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, instead pointed to public speeches by what she called a "parade" of administration officials, including Brennan, Holder, former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and former Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson that she said outlined the "legal framework" for such operations.

Pressure for turning over the Justice Department memos on targeted killings of Americans appears to be building on Capitol Hill amid signs that Brennan will be grilled on the subject at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

On Monday, a bipartisan group of 11 senators -- led by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon — wrote  a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to release all Justice Department memos on the subject. While accepting that "there will clearly be circumstances in which the president has the authority to use lethal force" against Americans who take up arms against the country,  it said, "It is vitally important ... for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how  the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of this authority."

[Read the entire article here.]

Read the 16-page memo here.

I'm glad Paul did what he did.  The creeping encroachment of government happens when people stop saying "hey, wait a minute".  I've emphasized the passages which seem to me the most disturbing.

Question everything.

[Alaric I]

Read the 16-page memo here.

I'm glad Paul did what he did.  The creeping encroachment of government happens when people stop saying "hey, wait a minute".  I've emphasized the passages which seem to me the most disturbing.

Question everything.

Much of what the government is doing nowadays disturbs me.  Are we doing it in the name of safety or is this more of a show of force aimed to quiet those that do question? Just a thought.