The United States' use of unmanned drones in counter-terrorism strikes has produced a multifaceted debate, which does not fall cleanly along the usual left-right lines, especially when the targets are American citizens who've fled the country to become suspected terrorists. For some, all Americans, even those who've joined al Qaeda, are entitled to due process, and should not be summarily executed by the U.S. government.
For others, if there's a war, and the nation is striking enemy combatants, whether an al Qaeda member is an American or not is immaterial. As Scott Lemieux noted the other day as an example, "[A]n American fighting for the Nazis on the battlefield would not have been entitled to due process."
It's obviously an issue worthy of debate, and I don't think it's an especially easy call. But even if we put aside for a moment this and related questions -- whether drone strikes are effective in preventing terrorism, whether the weapons themselves should be used by intelligence agencies instead of the military -- the far easier call is the one dealing with oversight, accountability, and checks and balances.
For the Obama administration, there's no doubt that the use of drones in targeting suspected terrorists -- whether they be American citizens or not -- is entirely legal. Indeed, administration officials have said publicly that the matter has been thoroughly scrutinized and passes constitutional muster.
And while the accuracy of those conclusions is obviously important, that's not quite what this week's debate has been all about. Rather, what Rachel, Michael Isikoff, and others have focused on of late is why the administration hasn't shared its legal findings with anyone outside the executive branch.
In other words, the administration strongly believes its drone policy is legally permissible, but it's refused to tell anyone why.
As of last night, that position has changed, and the Obama administration will bring the legal rationale behind its drone policy into the light -- but only a little.
With John Brennan, President Barack Obama's nominee to lead the CIA, set to begin his confirmation hearings, the White House announced late yesterday that it will brief the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on the legal justifications for drone strikes against U.S. citizens who've become suspected terrorists.
"Today, as part of the president's ongoing commitment to consult with Congress on national security matters, the president directed the Department of Justice to provide the congressional intelligence committees access to classified Office of Legal Counsel advice related to the subject of the Department of Justice White Paper," the official said. [...]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a statement Wednesday night she was pleased with the White House's decision.
"I am pleased that the president has agreed to provide the Intelligence Committee with access to the OLC opinion regarding the use of lethal force in counterterrorism operations. It is critical for the committee's oversight function to fully understand the legal basis for all intelligence and counterterrorism operations," Feinstein's statement read.
Again, maybe you think the drone policy is sound, maybe you think it's abhorrent, but the central dispute here is whether the administration can keep secret its own internal legal reasoning for a controversial national security policy.
By any fair measure, that's a position that's nearly impossible to defend.
So why do I say the administration is only bringing the drone policy into the light "a little"? Because the new disclosure will provide information to select members of Congress -- who have clearance to review classified materials -- but no one else. Neither journalists nor members of the public will have access to the classified materials that outline the legal rationale.
Leave a Comment:
It'll be interesting to see how the GOP reacts to all this...I imagine it'll be something like "We strongly disagree with the presidents decision to do something we agree with."
But the real question is why we can't all have our own drone. SECONDAMENDMENTCOLDDEADHAND!!!
yeah I the irony on this is pretty thick when you consider where the lines are drawn...
Has anyone seen the Hatter? I need more tea...
Every American should find it extremely odd and condescending that conservatives have decided to suddenly express their "OUTRAGE" and "HORROR" over possible civil liberties or human rights violations in the global war on terror. With an illegal and costly war on their resume, along with the Patriot Act, torture, secret prisons, TSA patdowns and the birth of the drone program, that Republicans have the temerity to make like the ACLU and pound Obama for continuing their own policies is astounding. The bottom line is that drones or unregulated killings of Americans overseas are part of a dangerous and slippery slope. But for conservatives to react the way they have is the height of hypocrisy. - progressive
DAY-3905329
Noam Chomsky has a good piece on American power over at Truth dig. Might makes right, and we are the "rightest" on the planet.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_paranoia_of_the_superrich_and_superpowerful_20130206/
You beat me to it !! I want mine too ;)
I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me, but I don't think it is accurate to call this(these?) memos "legal findings". I believe findings come from judges and juries. What Obama didn't share were legal opinions, which on some level may give him cover to say he believed he was acting legally, but the action was certainly subject to prosecution with or without the memos. And sometimes illegal actions aren't prosecuted. Sometimes they shouldn't be, but that's really the issue here. For now the important thing is that the memos don't make it legal. They would merely tell us what the President's legal defense would have been.
Technically, it does make it legal for Obama. In the same way that John Yoo made torture legal for Bush.
Obama is using executive policy, not Congressional resolutions, to guide his militarist actions in the Mid-East. He has his Dept of Justice dig up loosely termed legalisms to help develop a "loose" framework to justify his logic and the likely ramifications from the uncertainties of delivering on the "precision" targetting of remotely controlled aircraft.
Why make an exception for drone policy? All of the Administration's policies that impact Constitutional rights (search, habeus corpus, due process, etc.) are protected from judicial review by the blanket application of the State Secrets Privilege. Contrary to Obama's own published legal opinion, the SSP has been applied to not only protect sensitive materials that might be called upon in court but to block courts from even taking up cases where the Administration asserts (without risk of contradiction) that somewhere along the line sensitive materials might be relevant.
In effect, everything that the Administration does is above Constitutional scrutiny. And we thought Bush had delusions of Imperial Presidency!
that's the problem with "Precedent"...
Personally I think the administration underestimated the intelligence of the American people on this. If this policy had been handled in a more open manner, and I am not even talking about "Publicly" but if the programs existence had been acknowledged from the beginning and subject to judicial review (like a FISA court) I think there would be a lot fewer problems with it now.
Whether or not they like it most Americans at least understand the concept of the "Death Penalty"and I think under certain circumstances on this you could make that case.
"[A]n American fighting for the Nazis on the battlefield would not have been entitled to due process."
As a matter of fact, there were quite a few "Volks Deutsch" - children of immigrants who returned to The Fatherland to fight for Hitler (they were used frequently in special commando units like Otto Skorzeny's bunch during the Battle of the Bulge). When they were captured, they were almost all summarily executed by the troops who caught them.
Can someone post links to Obama's published legal opinions? I haven't been able to find any. This is not a shot, I'm serious. I would like to get more insight into the background of his legal theories.
If you somehow got access to them, we'd have to kill you.
Burn before reading and all that.
That's a good question actually I would like to see them too...or his syllabus or lecture notes.
Even though he didn't write this policy it would be interesting to see his opinions on the subject.
The rightwing looks for any angle to "IMPEACH!!" so I'd imagine if this issue could bolster that charge, they'll get behind it. They have been proven to be cravenly duplicitous about their beliefs when it might work in their favor.
ON the issue of Obama's drone strikes, I'm wondering: I just saw Zero Dark Thirty this past weekend and remember now at the time of the invasion on the bin Laden hideout, the Navy Seals pulled out a ton of material on hard drives, etc. Is the administration using that information to conduct these strikes? And, if so, I find it hard not to think that if it were McCain, Palin or any other republican in the WH they'd have boots on the ground and hundreds/thousands of collateral damage in the form of innocent bystanders as a result.
I realize the point at issue here might be the secrecy and the unwillingness to share the information with a larger body of lawmakers before striking. The times have definitely changed and we know that sentiment towards this country is worsening within the middle east. It's a strange place to be, but I tend to have A LOT of faith in the Obama administration to be thoughtful and careful about how it's moving ahead.
And one last thing on that note: In the movie, it took Obama administration over 100 days to do something about the intel on bin Laden. They even spoke to how he was CAREFUL, THOUGHTFUL and rigidly determined that the risk were outweighed by the benefits of going in. This is not a man who goes in barrels blazing like Bush or McCain. Having said that, I think it is indeed important to assure that the rules have boundaries for the NEXT guy/gal in office.
And your basing your opinion on a movie. 100 days to move on Bin Laden seems quick as opposed to his decission on a budget.
Look it will not be long before we are going to be ducking drones from every direction. Alqaeda sent 19 men to crush us. Our intellegence admitted they knew about it. Obama is striking pebbles, paying off the rocks, and borrowing from the mountian. As Hillary Clinton said as she admitted that we created Alqaeda. You harvest what you sow, and Obama is sowing our Security !!! In just 10 to 15 years time, we will see the same tech used against us. Except with this pecedent set. We will see decissions made from HSA, and TSA. My children's lives will be hell.
The only reason why it took 100 days is because they were never 100% sure it was UBL in the compound (that's what the "thoughtfulness" was all about). If they had 100% confidence on Day 1, they would have taken him out on Day 2.
Where is the left's outrage that Obama is trampling the Constitution? The same left who were outraged over Bush's water boarding and detentention of foreign combatants in Gitmo without Due Process?
Hank,
If you've been watching Rachel, Ed, Chris and those on the Spin, the left HAS been vocalizing outrage. Rachel in particular brought this up over a month ago and the rest of the Left Wing Liberal Entertainment Complex has been caught up in this and questioning the constitutionality of it. In fact, it wasn't until it was reported by the Left that the story came to light. Do yourself a favor and look into BOTH sides of the issue, not just what Rush or Sean have to say about it.
Right here, Hank
Missy, when I am speaking of the left, I am speaking directly to you and the other bloggers here. Missy, are you outraged with Obama's Kill List and killing of Americans without Due Process? If so I would like to see you and others hear express that outrage instead of being hypocrites that most of you are by accepting this policy because of your unequivocal love of the president. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the posters that this is the same John Brennan under the Bush administration who was involved with water boarding of foreign combatants which y'all were up in arms over and called for Bush's impeachment and to be tried for war crimes. Are you disturbed with Obama's drone policy or are you just going to marvel at how the Republicans are just using this for political advantage?
Perspective; during WWII we locked up Japanese Americans, JFK had the 'Bay of Pigs" fiasco, Nixon had a large "enemies list", Reagan secretly funded a war in Central America, GWB and his crowd ginned up an unfounded war, and it is certain the CIA has been doing 'wet work' all along. This is why we try to elect a president we can trust. Most Americans are happy knowing they are safe and that someone else is doing the dirty work of keeping them safe. I have no fear that a drone is coming for me here. I trust this president to be judicious, at least in comparison to many of his predecessors.
And do you trust his successors to exercise the same power so "judiciously"???
What is your trust of the president's judicious use of killing Americans and non-Americans on other sovereign nations which we have not declared war on based on?
Do you feel it's acceptable that Russia sends a drone to kill your russian neighbor who is a suspected Chechen rebel leader and unfortunately kills your family?
Hot dog! Let us expand this and use the drones on other terrorist organizations like the KKK , Nazis,anti-government militia,right winged extremists that bomb abortion clinics,religious zealots seeking to force prayer into public arenas like school or town hall!
Now that we know the rights and freedoms along with the protections guaranteed under the constitution are open to wide swings of interpretation we can rid our country of all "those" people!
Ron Silver comes to mind. Paul just figured out "those are our drones now"
Yes siree I never knew our drones were our drones before. I was not simply trying to make a point of distinction between using them against known enemies versus using them against U.S. citizens. In retrospect I will admit that I do have a double sided view on it. If the target is outside the U.S. and is proven to be of real danger then I can live with the use of drones. However if the target is an American citizen then I am cautious about what would be deemed proof. I am also dubious as to whether the target could have been brought back and put on trial.
May main point though was too remind us how slippery this slope can get.
Now as to your curt remark being insulting, pish posh.
Wasn't being insulting, just remembered Ron silver and found it funny(as I did when he said it). I would rather pop these "muslim extremists" with a drone than send my or your son over there to do it. Even if they are American citizens they're truly aligned with Allah.
When the future admins. turn the drones on legal gun owners we will worry about that then. There are alot of states passing legislation as we speak to restrict what drone operators can and can't do with their RC aircraft.
Yes and as yet the federal government still has the right to use drones in any state they wish. The state laws are to restrict what their police and their own citizens do with any drones they have. It occurs to me we went through this in a short form once when remote control planes were being outfitted with cameras. Of course those old style toys had limited range and wt. capacity.
It is interesting to note that these drones are evolving like computers did and getting cheaper to the point that your neighbor may one day have his own along with various spy gadgets onboard.
We seem to live in a gossip society where people no longer value privacy nor respect boundaries of ownership.
May main point though was too remind us how slippery this slope can get.
The bottom of the slope is similar to the high-powered laser in the 80's move, "Real Genius", where the government can take out any human target from space. It doesn't seem like we are very far from that right now (not the laser, but the capability).
The GOP, especially the RWNJs, are already spinning this in the direction of Obama having the "authority" to take out anyone, anytime and have strongly intimated that drone strikes
couldwould happen in the US. They are using the very fear the gun nuts have been clinging to, that the "big, black helicopters" (in this case, Drones) will rain down upon anyone Obama sees as a threat (so he can further his Communist agenda AND amend the Constitution so he can be President For Life) so, yeah, you DO need those high-capacity semi-automatic weapons to protect your liberties.Missy. I am a gun owner and not a gun nut. I do feel that if the government feels that they are justified in killing Americans abroad without Due Process, it will not be long before they do the same thing within our borders. Isn't it ironic that our own government who wants to restrict its citizens from owning higher powered hand arms while the government is unrestricted in developing more sophisticated weapons with unlimited capacity and technology. NY in limiting clips to 7 rounds, effectively outlaws all semi-automatic pistols and will relegate New Yorkers to six-shooters. It will be tough for future militias to check the powers of an ever expanding government which is in a perpetual war footing with a six shot revolver.
We who are liberals/progressives gained some ground after this past election. Are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot by hopping on the condemnation train? While it is true the power to do this is best regulated under a president who is not a Bush-like power grabber, you can bet the right is hoping to bring Obama down with this and cripple his last term. I think this president has used this power to spare troops, and it what I would want him to do... yet we have all seen the Bengazi-gate circus and I am worried.
Amen. In the country of 'stand your ground' and assault weapons for fun and profit, this discussion is strange. We want to be safe, we want our troops safe and many are condemning gov't spending. We can't have it both ways. Ideally people would learn to live together without greed and prejudice but we can not even do it here at home. The air force has been killing from a distance with no distinction of who was under the less accurate bombs. This is more conservative of life and property. We need to support the efforts made to keep us safe and that involves secrecy at times.
Well now we are getting to the real issue. Trust. Is trust always a fool's game? Can trust be doled out incrementally? Will Roger marry Sue? Will Harry get his gun?
Can hope exist where trust ceases?
The Problem is this sets a precedent. In the future the President may not be so restrained. How would you like a President Chaney or a President Gingrich to have an Executive power to kill any American without trial. Or to have the power of indefinite Detention without trial. Would a future president use these powers: to silence his critics: to stop the Occupy Wall street: to stop Abortion Rights Activists because they are an Imminent threat to Unborn America: to Silence Whistle Blowers. If you think it won't happen you have no idea what history has taught us.
Always nice to watch the Pollyanna Obamabots in action. "He's a good man and everything he does is for the good of all of us!"
Except when it isn't. Sorry, having been on Nixon's "enemies list" and lived through that, and the harassment by "patriots" over opposing Little Georgie's invasion of Poland, I am not prepared to allow any American President to have this power, since I no longer have any belief in the inherent "goodness" of Presidents, having seen too much contrary evidence.
It is probable that these legal memoranda were prepared because of the issue with the American terrorist in Yemen. There is no precedent for a President taking such action because we are involved with a new type of warfare. Congress cannot delegate powers to the President to override our Constitutional rights since Congress does not have such powers. The legal issue centers on the President's powers as commander-in-chief during an authorized military action. These powers are ambiguous because the Constitution says very little about the powers and its limitations. The drafters of the Constitution could not foresee every possible situation so they drafted the document based on their experiences with conventional warfare even though they used guerrilla warfare in the Revolution. Every President has claimed more powers under the constitution but this trend rapidly increased after WWII. And every President has tried to keep more information secret.
The legal issue is one that requires Congress to set forth what it considers Due Process with respect to American citizens being targeted by the drones. The bar for Due Process is quite high for citizens within our territory. But outside US territory, the bar for Due Process is a lot lower especially when that citizen is at war with his own country. Even if a FISA court had reviewed the intel information with respect to Al Awaki and his son, it is very unlikely that the court would have ruled against the government. In fact, it is highly likely that most of the government's requests would be granted since the court is presented only the evidence the government wants the court to see. Only in rare instances will a request be denied. There is no one to challenge the government in these hearings.
I doubt that a procedure involving a FISA court is going to be enough to satisfy the far left and civil libertarians. These type of requests would be very few since the cases only involve citizens who are overseas. The President's powers as it relates to people within US territory is governed by much more stringent requirements and standards. There is a case from the civil war when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and the court said that summary procedures by the authorities could not be used since the government had access to courts. This is still good case law. I see this issue as a tempest in a tea pot since it affects very few citizens, but the issue is very important from a Constitutional standpoint. Don't expect to see Obama and his administration come under attack for what it did to Al Awaki and his son. The secrecy issue is the bigger problem and I doubt that this is going to be a bone of contention with most of Congress. If they didn't ask more questions about Iraq, then they certainly are not going to ask a lot of questions about this issue involving national security.
I for one am real sick and tire of the use of national security as an excuse to keep the people in the dark. We the people are the government. We decide the direction this country will take by our votes. We have far too long cast our ballots and then simply shrug off the result.
Hi Rachel,
Thank you for talking about this issue. If it weren't for you and Chris Hayes I don't think it would have been on the air at all last year.
I've heard other shows saying that Liberals don't care. I think they just didn't know.
I think if they knew about Indefinite Detention without trail, and Killing Americans without trial - or even warning - they would not approve of it. I personally don't like it even if it's not an American, because people/governments make mistakes, and have prejudices. But apparently that's just me who cares.
"It is impossible to defend perfectly against the attack of those who want to die". Could not find author of this. The police or FBI just killed a kidnapper in Ala. to save a child. This was based on what they feared he might do. No attempt to tase him so he could stand trial. Any outrage noted? If an aircraft approaches the U S and will not identify itself it may be shot down regardless of who is flying it. Once someone participates in attacks on America whether planning or participating directly they give up their rights during a war, imho. We had bounties on many people after 9/11 and did not care how they died. I voted for Pres. Obama because I believe he does not want war for profit. I did not trust Mitt with this.
I do not like this drone strike business. I believe a hornet's nest is in the making and it is going to come back and bite us. An American citizen is working against his own country in some fashion and so it's ok to kill him and the people around him? We've had congresscritters go around the world and condemn their own country and those bastards are still here and some are still in office. Where do we set the bar for due process? Only common citizens get killed by a drone and congresscritters can say and do what they want with no punishment?
We aren't just killing the "one" person we find as a terrorist against America. We end up killing many other people that are in the same area with them. We are going into other countries to kill them. I'm not comfortable with this and the right-wing-wacko excuse of "do you want them to come here?" doesn't fly anymore now than it did when it was used for one of the excuses to invade Iraq. War criminals get their day in court even if it's in absentia.
We claim the moral high ground and condemn countries that do the same crap we are doing. If what other countries do when they suppress voting, arrest people without charges and lock them away for years is wrong, why are we adopting it? Better yet, what is going to happen when some other country finds someone on American soil that THEY deem a terrorist? What excuse are we going to give them that they can't kill people on our soil because that country may THINK they are a terrorist?
I fear that not only the sloppy way we had these two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the drones are going to invite more terrorists along with more people that hate us leading to another 9/11 type disaster. I really do hope I'm wrong.
I'm disappointed in Obama for wanting this program to continue and I think it's time he kicked down his closet door and admit he's a republican.
Well, Obama is not really a closet Republican, because the entire political agenda of the Democratic Party has shifted rightward, and so, of course, has he. Why do you think there's little, if any, opposition to this perpetual warfare and to the bargaining"stance Obama assumes to the serious domestic issues we face, from the Dems?
I'm not sure where either side wants this to go. Start with the fact that Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are out there, and are attacking or planning to attack us and our allies. I think both sides agree on that. So, how do you deal with the threat? You can fortify all possible targets, and in doing so turn what is supposed to be a free country into little more than an armed prison camp. We have gone a ways in that direction, unfortunately. The other response is to attack the terrorists where they are based, either through drones or by boots on the ground. In the current environment, one that has prevailed ever since the end of the Vietnam War, we are averse to the loss of American troops. When Clinton sent troops to Somalia on what was supposed to be a humanitarian, the loss of a single helicopter crew in the Blackhawk Down incident was enough for repubs in Congress to cut funding for the operation and bring it to an end. So, what is left? Drones seem to be the only weapon that the American public is willing to accept, despite what we are hearing these days.
The public will accept the collateral damage and killing any American who they think is a terrorist. That acceptance includes with or without drones. No reasonable person is going to want the government to advertise they are out to kill a specific person who is an American, nor do they care. People will accept a minimal amount of Due Process even if it means a FISA court rubberstamps kill orders.
I just read an article from Politico that has Lindsey Graham defending the president on drone use. Personally, I think the guy(the American ) deserved to die. He was a traitor and wanted to kill Americans
Regarding "drones used to kill Americans overseas," as usual lefty commentators have have ceded the framing of the debate to our agile right-wing word-smiths, who seek any way to stir up their base, and impair a Democratic president. Any American who joins Al Quada, an organization at war with the United States, is committing treason, per our Constitution, Article 3 section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies." The penalty for treason is death. Should these individuals be found on a battlefield, their deaths as enemy combatants would raise no objection. The fact that they now have no stronghold, and have dispersed their organization among various civilian populations, yet still wage war on us, means that they have blurred the battlefield out of existence, and can now be pursued as individuals or small groups. Should American lives be sacrificed merely to bring treasonous Americans to trial? The drones solve this problem, whether you're a Republican't or a Democrat.
What about those families of women and children just happening to get in the way of a drone Hawk missile? Do you call that targeted? The usage of drone warfare is already creating a blowback. Iran captured a CIA surveillance drone, and is re-engineeering it to possibly develop their own drone production. Getting messy, eh?
Still way fewer casualties, military or civilian, than if we sent in the 101st Airborne. We could do it taliban-style, and send in assassins disguised as a TV crew, once. And if our (very expensive) military is not devoting at least as much time and effort to anti-drone technologies as they are to the drones themselves, that would be truly fubar.
Anyone who sincerely has a problem with the drone policy should not focus on the White House. The Constitution gives the President the power to press wars, but also clearly says that ultimate approval and oversight is the domain of Congress. Whether this is legal or not, the President is only able to get away with it because Congress has shirked their duty to act as the check and balance.
For every problem we have today, always remember one thing. The blame belongs to Congress, not the President.
I'm not reading where the repukes are upset about this or are trying to use it to "impeach" Obama.
As near as I can tell the repukes would be OK with killing Mexicans if they get more or less than 100 yards close to the Wall, but they would not be OK with whacking the Ted Nugent whackos who openly advocate shooting government workers (including Obama and Clinton)
Dear R. Maddow,
Have you heard how to convert Muslims to Christianity? Recycled MissleToe.
Bjones5220@gmail.com
P.S. How could I best share my photos and memoirs from my teaching assignment as a native English teacher in southern Saudi Arabia (near Yemen).
Rachel,
I'm concerned about the growing controversy over "drone warfare" and it's accelerated use in targeted assassinations. It appears that the President has not only continued drone attacks since GWB but has increased/intensified them over multiple war zones. On-site reports from journalists and nationals have confirmed that women and children are being killed and injured to a mounting degree. Officials and humanitarian groups have called these actions war crimes, a disturbing revelation to be sure. I also do not understand how standing international legalities are being manipulated or outright ignored related to these activities. Are we not expected to fully justify our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and northern Pakistan as other nations may be? And why is our President so earnestly involved in these foreign forays to the detriment of an America in desperate need of job creation, corporate regulation, reducing the staggering wealth inequities between the wealthy and beleaguered wage-earners (the rest of us), to name just a few?
Thanks very much for maintaining this great blog so our voices may be heard!
In the final analysis, and since 9/11, we live in a very dangerous world with some very
fanatical enemies (some born in this country) not only committed to our very destruction, and that of our allies, but sworn to it. They are so viscerally hateful of us that they believe their "god" has directed them to pursue the destruction and murder of innocent civilians of America and “the West” at any and all costs, including, but not limited to, martyrdom. I don't buy the argument that if we use drones and EITs that they [terrorists and their sympathizers] will hate us even more. They couldn’t possibly hate us any more than they already do, and nothing we could ever do, short of converting to their hysterically bastardized and poisonous version of Islam, would diminish that blind hatred they hold for us. Drones are highly effective and legitimate surgical tools to use in this never-ending war being waged against us by terrorists, as are EITs for that matter, and I don’t think we should apologize for that…I just think it should be kept secret with proper oversight.
In watching some of Brennan’s testimony today, I am largely okay with his answers and I feel that he will direct our CIA to do whatever it takes to protect us from another 9/11. He had to answer the questions put to him with honesty, humility and deference so he can gain confirmation and take the helm in Langley. I only take issue with those who take the extreme and indefensible position that, even in the event that we have in custody a terrorist with first-hand knowledge of an imminent attack on our soil, EITs or torture should not be used to extract the information needed to stop the attack. Such a policy says that we should be willing to suffer another 9/11 rather than violate the supposed “rights” of terrorists by torturing them. I submit that such irresponsible inaction would be tantamount to complicity and treason in an attack, and would result in a public outrage that cannot be overstated.
Let’s be very clear: al Qaeda and all their multiple offspring have declared war on the United States and should be dealt with accordingly. They are not civilians who deserve “due process” in our courts—the are sworn enemy combatants waging an unconventional war against us and who use any and all means to succeed in killing as many of us as possible. We need to send responsible, judicious people to Congress and the White House who appreciate those facts and who are NOT willing to take any option off the table when it comes to ensuring and maintaining our national security and safety…so we don’t ever again have to watch innocent civilians jumping to their deaths from high-rise buildings.
Disclosure to the media and the public of intelligence and military product regarding sensitive information and operations should be done very judiciously, and only on a “need to know” basis, not solely in the interests of blind curiosity and mistrust. Drones, EITs and “torture” are harsh and brutal, don’t get me wrong, and they should only be used against the worst of the worst and only in the most extreme and dire of circumstances. I do not believe they are things that should not be wholly abolished due to public outrage or hysteria. Oversight committees are there to govern the machinations of our intelligence services, and this “slippery slope” is, at present, I feel, a non-issue. Those on the radar of our CIA are there for good reason. They are not merely disgruntled people angry at our government. They are people who are actively committed and working to carry out our very destruction. I have no sympathy for them and, to them, no quarter should be given. Terrorist policy is to intentionally target innocent civilians, while ours is to try to carefully target only combatants who callously try to hide among civilians. They bring about the collateral damage the hate so much.
There’s a heat-breaking and gut-wrenching documentary called, “The Falling Man” and it documents the life and death of just one of the hundreds of people who hurled themselves out of the WTC towers windows some 100 floors above the street. I recommend it to anyone who objects to using drones or “torture” to stop an imminent terrorist attack, or to anyone who cares to learn about the life and horrible death of a truly innocent victim of terrorists whose mission in life it is to complete another more destructive and deplorable attack upon American civilians.