Dept. of Justice "White Paper"

Hate to pull a Glenn Beck fearmongering tactic, but this shit is absolutely insane and scary.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

Basically redefines "imminent danger".

"...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."

This is an actual quote.

I'm going to read this document in full later but in the interest of getting the thread going I was listening to a right-of-center radio talk show on this yesterday and it sounds pretty much like if you're associating with terrorists you've forfeit your citizenship and the constitution no longer applies to you. I'm interested in legal arguments against this. I'm just left-of-center btw and right off the bat I'm not all up in arms against it but I need to know more.

it seems like something that would disturb left and right legalists...I mean this eerily parallels some of the language used by the Force Acts of 1870-1871..but those were later repealed for obvious reasons...

It really is fucking insane in principle and it's one of these things where it's irrelevant if Glenn Beck or [insert far-left pundit here] are up in arms about it. A liberal senator this morning on the Today Show pointed out that while most Americans support drones being used (something like 80%) and that overall it's been used "reasonably" it's still legally a radical precedent. I agree. This needs to be clarified and addressed. Convenience in killing terrorists of American citizenship should not outweigh the fact that the executive branch is being given way too much military power. Yesterday someone said this is Obama's equivalent to the now torture program under W. Bush. Neither should be excused because of any advantage given to our government in fighting terrorists. This is one of those issues in a dangerous are where we as a nation are no longer morally and ethically superior to our enemies, especially when it merely gives a blank check for our elected officials to do as they please with our military and police assets.

Talk about paranoia...

  On 2/7/2013 at 8:44 PM, gaarg said:

Talk about paranoia...

you don't think this is deserving of some paranoia?

even assuming Obama never abuses it, its the precedent that has been established for later executive admins that is really creepy.

Agreed, I'm not usually one of those watmmers - this policy being used in some police state conspiracy isn't my concern, it's the fact that it echoes the pre-emptive strike rhetoric that was used to invade Iraq but in far more specific and dangerous manner. It's taking the concept of imminence to a new level. We shouldn't be able to target and kill individuals solely because their planning to attack Americans. Raiding terror cells, arresting suspects, launching airstrikes on weapon sites - those are debatable actions. Assassinating citizens deemed "dangerous" overseas? That's extreme and dangerous no matter what.

Yeah. I'm not too paranoid about Obama actually using this in the near future. It's the fact that this is basically eroding the principles of rule of law one by one (I mean "Rechtsstaat"-principles, how the fuck do you even translate that?). Which more or less goes against any of the legal achievements of the last ~250 years.

Yeah this one is pretty fucking awful in terms of the precedent it sets. The fact that they can be so goddamned vague with the language is horribly disconcerting.

whats even more disconcerting is that all of the major news networks are approaching this from an absolutely despicable standpoint...I actually heard one program on FOX and one on MSNBC that basically completely ignored how much power this gives the executive branch and instead focused on "well, at least its more humane/worse than waterboarding, which the libs/conservatives supported/were against"

once again, the lesser of two evils nonsense moves us closer to the precipice.

Land of the free.

  On 2/7/2013 at 11:27 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

whats even more disconcerting is that all of the major news networks are approaching this from an absolutely despicable standpoint...I actually heard one program on FOX and one on MSNBC that basically completely ignored how much power this gives the executive branch and instead focused on "well, at least its more humane/worse than waterboarding, which the libs/conservatives supported/were against"

 

once again, the lesser of two evils nonsense moves us closer to the precipice.

goddamn fucking pundits lol

  On 2/7/2013 at 11:27 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

whats even more disconcerting is that all of the major news networks are approaching this from an absolutely despicable standpoint...I actually heard one program on FOX and one on MSNBC that basically completely ignored how much power this gives the executive branch and instead focused on "well, at least its more humane/worse than waterboarding, which the libs/conservatives supported/were against"

 

once again, the lesser of two evils nonsense moves us closer to the precipice.

Do you expect anything better from talking heads?

Here is an interesting piece on drone warfare - not from the legal point of view (which, going by the current laws of armed conflict, is not hard to justify) but rather from the ethical and consequential points of view.

It's free for now, dunno how long it will last that way. Well worth a read - warning for those who don't like reading scholarly articles - you might wanna give this a pass.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2346.12002/abstract

I did a segment on my sisters show about this last week. What's most disturbing to me about NDAA and this, is that with everything combined it literally takes away posse comitatus, congressional approval and habeus corpus 10 whole fucking years after 9/11. No other time in american history have civil liberties been this eroded during 'peace time'. When i say peace time i mean not in the midst of a civil/world war or a nuclear standoff. The longest civil liberties were stripped in America was during the McCarthy era, but that really only lasted 6 years. We're already going 10+ with a gulag of people indefinitely detained, sneak and peak searches without a warrant and now this shit. Most disturbing of all is that it has become background noise, effectively normalized. We are not getting these rights back without a huge push back from the American public and i honestly don't see that happening.

Obama is going to go down in history as the person who basically made indefinite warfare normal and put the final nail in the coffin of American freedom of speech, investigative journalism and activism. I hope hes proud of his legacy

sorry to go off on a tagent

  On 2/7/2013 at 9:03 PM, dese manz hatin said:

Yeah. I'm not too paranoid about Obama actually using this in the near future.

he only is in for another 4 years, what about the person after him or after that?

  On 2/7/2013 at 8:44 PM, gaarg said:

Talk about paranoia...

thanks for adding substance to the discussion

  On 2/7/2013 at 8:24 PM, joshuatx said:

where we as a nation are no longer morally and ethically superior to our enemies

So you're implying that the US was once morally and ethically superior to their enemies? Or that there is even such a thing as moral/ethical superiority in conflicts? I hope I don't need to explain how silly this sounds. IMO, it would be smart to not ever talk about moral and ethical superiority in the context of conflicts, nations or cultures whatsoever. I'm sure you're intentions are good and all. So I'm not trying to question your integrity. But moral superiority? No. Not. Ever. Please.

  On 2/7/2013 at 9:03 PM, dese manz hatin said:

Yeah. I'm not too paranoid about Obama actually using this in the near future. It's the fact that this is basically eroding the principles of rule of law one by one (I mean "Rechtsstaat"-principles, how the fuck do you even translate that?). Which more or less goes against any of the legal achievements of the last ~250 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat

Apparently it's also an English concept...

  On 2/7/2013 at 11:11 PM, chenGOD said:

Yeah this one is pretty fucking awful in terms of the precedent it sets. The fact that they can be so goddamned vague with the language is horribly disconcerting.

Isn't this vagueness obvious in legislation of this kind? I haven't read the article, but I expect matching vague terms counterbalancing the "awful" parts in this bill. In the sense that privacy and safety of people is taken care off in vague terms as well.

IMO, that vagueness can be a good thing. It creates the freedom, or stronger, forces debates any time the government acts upon this bill. And rightly so. By having a bill like this, IMO the implication is that the US recognises situations where certain steps should be taken. I'm sure some people would disagree these steps should be taken in any situation at all. But despite that argument, my current point would be that the quality of a bill like this largely depends on the counterbalances within it.

As long as government remains legally open to criticism and is legally forced to show responsibility the most important rights are preserved. IMO.

  On 2/8/2013 at 9:44 AM, Awepittance said:

I did a segment on my sisters show about this last week. What's most disturbing to me about NDAA and this, is that with everything combined it literally takes away posse comitatus, congressional approval and habeus corpus 10 whole fucking years after 9/11. No other time in american history have civil liberties been this eroded during 'peace time'. When i say peace time i mean not in the midst of a civil/world war or a nuclear standoff. The longest civil liberties were stripped in America was during the McCarthy era, but that really only lasted 6 years. We're already going 10+ with a gulag of people indefinitely detained, sneak and peak searches without a warrant and now this shit. Most disturbing of all is that it has become background noise, effectively normalized. We are not getting these rights back without a huge push back from the American public and i honestly don't see that happening.

 

Obama is going to go down in history as the person who basically made indefinite warfare normal and put the final nail in the coffin of American freedom of speech, investigative journalism and activism. I hope hes proud of his legacy

 

sorry to go off on a tagent

Good points, but I do question wether or not much has actually changed due to 9/11.

IMO, the most important change has been the explicit implementation of legislature. But in practice, stuff like this was already taking place. It might be more widespread afterwards, but that's not because of this legislation, IMO.

From a European perspective, the US have always been a bit paranoid in the "our safety first" department, regardless of the legislation. And from this perspective it's entirely predictable what would happen in the US after an event like 9/11. Even if legislation is turned back to pre-9/11 standards, odds are that in 15 years, a new 9/11 would have the exact same effect on legislature. And a large part of society would support it. Again.

The irony might even be that the US covert operations might be more open than ever. There have been operations like these long before 9/11, but I wonder whether they were as open as they currently are.

I'm not against legislature like this apriori (given the right counterbalances), but I do want to stress that I'd only support bills like this if the government is forced to "wikileaks" itself sooner (for instance, cables should be publically released no more than 2 years after internal publication).

  On 2/8/2013 at 11:06 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 2/7/2013 at 8:24 PM, joshuatx said:

where we as a nation are no longer morally and ethically superior to our enemies

 

So you're implying that the US was once morally and ethically superior to their enemies? Or that there is even such a thing as moral/ethical superiority in conflicts? I hope I don't need to explain how silly this sounds. IMO, it would be smart to not ever talk about moral and ethical superiority in the context of conflicts, nations or cultures whatsoever. I'm sure you're intentions are good and all. So I'm not trying to question your integrity. But moral superiority? No. Not. Ever. Please.

Well of course - war is absolute hell. There is no such thing as a "just war." That said, the basic values and ideals that the US military or any NATO and major ally fight for are superior to that of Islamic fundamentalists. Are the soldiers themselves morally superior? No. Do I blindly trust and support the US government and the governments of it's allies? No. Likewise I can't rationally say any military force is morally and ethically superior to another within actual combat.

So I retract that vague and naive statement regarding the US in general, especially considering the record of human rights violations the United States has committed varies greatly over history. But it's just as fucking naive to lump all entities in all conflicts into one cynical assumption that they're all the same. That's just vague, cynical nihilism. Committing drone strikes and torturing suspects is less moral than basic, straightforward military actions in response to an attack, even if it's a subtle difference. I stand by that statement.

Regardless of whether or not the US was ever morally superior to anybody or not. They are definitely loosing the moral highground they once had in the eyes of the (western) world fast. I wonder what the foreign policy will look like in the next few decades if they continue to lose this legitimacy (for starting "reasonable" wars and "interventions") they enjoyed in high amounts since the end of WWII.

  On 2/8/2013 at 6:47 PM, dese manz hatin said:

Regardless of whether or not the US was ever morally superior to anybody or not. They are definitely loosing the moral highground they once had in the eyes of the (western) world fast. I wonder what the foreign policy will look like in the next few decades if they continue to lose this legitimacy (for starting "reasonable" wars and "interventions") they enjoyed in high amounts since the end of WWII.

That better evokes what I was trying to say earlier to some extent. Granted the US has lost legitimacy with many nations and entire regions multiple times, but always had allies and diplomatic weight even during quagmires like Vietnam. Compare the support for intervention in Afghanistan compared to the Iraq invasion. When thinking of the consequences if one of these drone strikes kills a citizen of a US ally, especially one that isn't a terror suspect, the potential blow-back is tremendous. You can "sell" nation-building interventions, attacks on terrorist/insurgent camps, etc. to the UN - drone strikes worldwide at will no so much.

quoting is all messed up on the mobile version so i cant be arsed with it but goDel you really should read the document. there is little redeeming value in the vagueness here. when the word imminent is redefined to mean not imminent, there are definite problems with the legislation.

there is little oversight, congress is allowed some access to the memos but is not allowed to discuss them in public. freedom is certainly not strengthened via this legislation.

and I'm not even against drone strikes in warfare.

drone strikes 'in warfare' being the operative phrase. In my mind drone strikes are being employed so that warfare is no longer an issue, you can keep attacking various people around the world mostly under the radar and people don't think of it as war. You can do this indefinitely pretty much, that to me is the scariest part. What once was considered war has now faded into the background and people don't give a shit.

a drone strike is no different from a traditional air strike, has just as high of a failure rate (standfords study shows a 98% failure rate) the only difference really is that Americans don't die in the process since they sit comfortably in an air conditioned office with a cup of coffee and a joystick

Well really, Americans don't die in traditional air strikes anymore, unless by pilot error. can you link me to that failure rate study please?

Compson I think, posted a really interesting article about a drone pilot's experiences from a german magazine. I'll try and remember the link and post it for you, the effect that these missions have on the psyche of the people flying them is quite intense.

Most of us (all of us really) will live their lives without being affected by this.

  On 2/9/2013 at 8:17 AM, Deer said:

Most of us (all of us really) will live their lives without being affected by this.

It's a little too early to say that. Whilst I hate the slippery slope argument, the wording of this legislation is so vague that it could potentially affect many people around the world.

  On 2/8/2013 at 9:44 AM, Awepittance said:

I did a segment on my sisters show about this last week. What's most disturbing to me about NDAA and this, is that with everything combined it literally takes away posse comitatus, congressional approval and habeus corpus 10 whole fucking years after 9/11. No other time in american history have civil liberties been this eroded during 'peace time'. When i say peace time i mean not in the midst of a civil/world war or a nuclear standoff. The longest civil liberties were stripped in America was during the McCarthy era, but that really only lasted 6 years. We're already going 10+ with a gulag of people indefinitely detained, sneak and peak searches without a warrant and now this shit. Most disturbing of all is that it has become background noise, effectively normalized. We are not getting these rights back without a huge push back from the American public and i honestly don't see that happening.

 

Obama is going to go down in history as the person who basically made indefinite warfare normal and put the final nail in the coffin of American freedom of speech, investigative journalism and activism. I hope hes proud of his legacy

 

sorry to go off on a tagent

censorship? freedom of speech? activism? give me a break, the government has just to sit back and enjoy as the general public become more and more oblivious to the crimes this government is committing.

There is plenty information out there to cause an uproar but nobody gives a shit, what else do people need to see to realize what its government is doing.

People have become so jaded, oblivious and self centered no amount of information will make them change things.

Maybe this general feeling of obliviousness was caused the conditions this government created but you know what people like you or your sister keep shouting all the information the population need to "wake up" and nobody is doing shit (not even the people that are paying attention)

I dont understand why you (and people who are "awake") give a shit about this god forsaken population of fucking idiots, is it worth it worrying about all this shit when the people you are trying to help dont give a shit and call you paranoid or crazy?