dagblog - Comments for "Eric Holder: Executive Branch Reviews Of Targeted Killings Count As ‘Due Process’"

I just ran across this

artappraiser — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:27:00 +0000

In reply to ICYMI, Kevin Drum riffs on

I just ran across this "somewhat related" by accident: David Ignatius did his March 2 column basically praising the House Intelligence Committee as the only working bipartisan place in Congress, including oversight being much better than it was in the last Congress:

The House intelligence committee: A rare example of bipartisanship
By David Ignatius, Washington Post, March 2

The House intelligence committee used to be one of the meanest snake pits in Congress, a place where members were so busy sniping at each other that they failed to provide effective oversight of the intelligence community. It was a model of what was wrong with Washington.

Amazingly enough, the committee has found its way out of the wilderness under a new chairman and ranking Democrat, Reps. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, and C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, who is from Maryland’s 2nd District. With their leadership, the House has approved intelligence-authorization bills by lopsided, bipartisan margins the past two fiscal years, after many years when the committee was too divided to pass such legislation.

“Rogers and Ruppersberger have made bipartisanship work,” says Gen. Mike Hayden, a former CIA director who struggled with the old, dysfunctional system. Back then, he recalls, “the committee was just wild — incredibly contentious and highly politicized. They have worked hard to get it back to business.”

So what produced this little miracle of bipartisanship? That’s the interesting part of the story. [....]

Rogers and Ruppersberger wanted less partisan sniping — but also, more aggressive oversight. In this monitoring role, the House committee pushed the CIA to be more aggressive in hunting down shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles in Libya. Rogers was so insistent that the agency brought to Washington a big hammer that had been used to smash the missiles and presented it to the chairman.

One example of improved oversight is that a committee staff member works full time to review covert action plans, and the whole committee meets once a quarter for a closed hearing on this most sensitive topic. An example of pushback on covert action is that the committee warned the administration away from a plan to arm the Libyan rebels [....]

Thanks, I think that's a

artappraiser — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:33:19 +0000

In reply to ICYMI, Kevin Drum riffs on

Thanks, I think that's a decent job expressing some of the problems.

As much as I hate conspiracy theorizing, with this whole issue, it does help with this to try to see it from the administration's POV to have an imagination--

For one example, what is going on behind the scenes if the following is true?

With Arms for Yemen Rebels, Iran Seeks Wider Mideast Role, NYT, March 15, cavaet: according to an American official and a senior Indian official.

ICYMI, Kevin Drum riffs on

EmmaZahn — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:50:53 +0000

In reply to Eric Holder: Executive Branch Reviews Of Targeted Killings Count As ‘Due Process’

ICYMI, Kevin Drum riffs on the transparency issue in another case.

Obama and Shaye: Will the White House Explain its Actions? | Mother Jones:

Should Obama be required to explain in detail the reasons he did this?

I don't know how to address this except to say that I think it's a really hard question. Bright lines sound great from a distance, and there's no question that bright lines are appropriate sometimes. They're brightest in the case of direct U.S. action against a U.S. citizen. They're a little less bright when it's U.S. action against non-citizens. They're less bright still when it's a matter of nudging a client state to take action against a non-citizen. And it's even less bright on a hot battlefield.

Human rights groups widely believe Shaye's trial was a sham. But Shaye himself declined to offer a defense and his lawyer boycotted the trial. And the U.S. government isn't talking. So there's very little public evidence in either direction. Maybe Obama has information about Shaye's connections to al-Qaeda that he can't make public because it would endanger lives or compromise sources. Maybe he doesn't. If he does, should he have to make it public regardless of the consequences? Or if he's not willing to do that, forego any pressure on the Yemeni government?

I don't know. I think the line is pretty dim here. The plain fact is that when it comes to terrorism and the intelligence community, there are some cases where the public just isn't going to be informed. That's true of every country and every leader. So, like it or not, there are sometimes going to be cases where the question really does come down to whether you trust the president. That seems to be the case here. I'd like to see reporters press the White House further on this, but until someone digs up further information I'm not sure what the alternative is.

I do dread reading him. Not

artappraiser — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:36:55 +0000

In reply to I understand and appreciate

I do dread reading him. Not really sure why, maybe something to do with my worsening AADD or his writing style

Oh I think he's very clearly a terrible writer, and I come up with that opinion judging it against all categories: traditional journalism, blogging , rant, op-ed, legal, or any other standards. My eyes usually glaze over before his first "update," much less his 23rd one. (Ok, perhaps in the "stream of consciouness" category, he might rate "not terrible.")

Edit to add: I did not take your comment as criticism in any way. I was feeling guilty for not responding.

I understand and appreciate

EmmaZahn — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:56:41 +0000

In reply to Emma, Thank you for your

I understand and appreciate how you collect links on important topics. I find them quite useful references and have even copied your technique from time to time. In no way did I intend any criticism.

Frankly, I was just overwhelmed by the intensity of the media and internets reaction to what Holder said. It did not help that the subject falls within Greenwald's area of expertise. I do dread reading him. Not really sure why, maybe something to do with my worsening AADD or his writing style. However, the left tends to fall in lockstep with him on anything constitution or law related and since I feel compelled to read first sources....

Having given the topic a little more thought, I remembered that both the military and police have existing guidelines for the use of deadly force. No doubt with the GWOT. these are undergoing considerable revision and expansion. That may be the best place to look for what transparency is available though you probably will not find a kill list, which reminds me, whose faces are in that terrorist card deck nowadays?

The more I think about this so many other questions come to mind. Quite a rabbit hole.

Thanks again for the links.

Emma, Thank you for your

artappraiser — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 05:32:18 +0000

In reply to Is there a Powerpoint on all

Emma,

Thank you for your comment and excuse me for not responding for so long; first I was too busy to post at all, then I really wasn't equipped to respond (I'm just not into the kind of conversation on this that's occurring on Cleveland's thread, for one thing, and I've not gotten to the stage where I can really express my own thoughts on it well, for another.)

So just some of my random thoughts---

I admit I didn't read everything I posted carefully either, some I skimmed, I just wanted to collate all the opinions I was running across where I could find them. I don't think much about a lot of liberal bloggers on it, they just seem to be such simplistic emotional, knee-jerk arguments, not willing to confront the Christopher Hitchens argument he posed in an essay before his death: that those who disagree have to say what they would do instead.

I found Robert Chesney's piece at Lawfare, Holder on Targeted Strikes: The Key Passages, with Commentary to be most helpful in going to back to, in that it goes over what Holder actually said. (Not some bloggers third hand interpretations or hyperbole about what all this means, but what he said.)

I'm glad I waited and didn't comment sooner. Because closest to what I personally think is pretty well said in the NYT editorial for this last Sunday's paper: The Power to Kill. They say it much better than I could, they've spent more time on it and they also have a FOIA request in on the Awlaki memo. I also think they've got the right perspective in the editorial that doesn't get into hyperbole and doesn't veer off into non-applicable thoughts. (And even they let things percolate quite a few days before they ventured an opinion on what he said.)

One thing I keep coming back to, one thing that really puzzles me, is that Obama really was a Constitutional Law Professor, no joke and no exaggeration. So this is not a case of Bush just okaying a Yoo memo without understanding it! And the guy has some experience in explaining this kind of stuff to a class of law students. So how come he can't come up with a few words now himself on the issue for the citizens of the country for which he now works? I think Bill Clinton would have found some words.

The Times' editorial board is correct in stressing for one thing the transparency issue. You don't have to talk about intel about those on a kill list to say something general about how this is being approached. Without them telling me more than Holder has now, I suspect that they just didn't feel it politically possible to set up the kind of review system they would have preferred, and needed to act without one because of politics. That's sad, that's chicken. But I am just guessing there, guessing because they won't be transparent.

Another thing that affects my own perspective on it is that I do follow the news of terrorism trials, and have since before 9/11. They're going on all the time. One good example, a recent one: AP here and Reuters here of a sort of Awlaki wannabe (and was in contact with Awlaki) handled in the courts under Obama's watch, an American citizen, arrested in Kosovo in 2009, just got sentenced to 27 years. I think the hyperbole of them giving up on the courts in the terrorism fight isn't true and takes one away from the real thorny issues here; the kill list is something created for exceptional cases in a situation of an unconventional war. The problem is that they are not being transparent enough about what those exceptions are (though Chesney's article does point out how Holder's speech did address that somewhat, with a list,) and haven't set up a proper system for review.

P.S. As for the kill list itself, I am a relativist, with opinions developed since my Vietnam war protesting days --along the lines of: why do countries always go to war to the effect of thousands and thousands of lives lost and other lives destroyed ,when a targeted assassination of a few might solve the problem? Does that have to do with that military industrial complex and the positive economic effects of war? Suffice it to say I am not as anti-drone as many here. I'm not the least interested in arguing about that, though.

A couple of links to add to

EmmaZahn — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:28:54 +0000

In reply to Eric Holder: Executive Branch Reviews Of Targeted Killings Count As ‘Due Process’

A couple of links to add to your list:

Adam Serwer |When the US Government Can Kill You, Explained | Mother Jones

Kevin Drum | Holder: Oversight is a Good Idea if You're Killing U.S. Citizens, But That Doesn't Mean We're Going to Allow Any | Mother Jones

Is there a Powerpoint on all

EmmaZahn — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:21:58 +0000

In reply to Eric Holder: Executive Branch Reviews Of Targeted Killings Count As ‘Due Process’

Is there a Powerpoint on all this somewhere? MEGO just thinking about reading all that even though I know I should and probably eventually will but for first I want to clarify what I think.

As basically the sheriff of the Federal government, the executive branch has killed American citizens extrajudicially since, well, forever. As with other homicides, sometimes the killings may be justified; sometimes not.

Since it was denied prior to killing, due process after the fact becomes much more important. The person(s) responsible for ordering and executing the killing must face an open, public trial for it. (In the case of a President and his administration, the trial probably should be deferred until after his/her term. No more Ken Starrs, please)

Killings like these can be forgiven but must never be given permission, must never be codified; they are too situational, too circumstantial. Yet, that is exactly what Holder et al are attempting to do. It reminds me of how Nazi bureaucrats were always portrayed in those post WW2 movies, always making sure that what they did no matter how heinous was perfectly legal.

As usual, media left has taken its stand on the wrong principle and on behalf of the wrong people. Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan may have been American citizens (barely) but they chose to be the worst kind of outlaw - mass murderers, maybe just wannabes, but still. Not the most sympathetic defendants.