On May 29, 2009, President Obama gave a speech at the National Archives in which he said the following:
Now let me be clear: We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable — a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass.
The president went on to trumpet the fact that he banned the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, saying, “I know some have argued that brutal methods like waterboarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more.” Mr. Obama argued that (among other things) they undermine the rule of law. And during the 2008 campaign and shortly thereafter, Obama insisted that his policies would “regain America’s moral stature in the world.” This was a common Obama theme: He would act in ways that respect international law and human rights and remove the stain from America’s reputation.
I thought of all of this in light of this report by NBC’s Michael Isikoff. Thanks to Isikoff, we’ve learned that “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.”
According to the memo, “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.”
In addition, it states 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.” But as Isikoff point out, the memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”
You can be excused if you’ve (a) missed Mr. Obama’s much-heralded due process element in all of this and (b) have a hard time reconciling Mr. Obama’s presidents-should-not-have-blanket-authority-to-do-whatever-they-wish-lectures (see the National Archives speech for more) with his Justice Department’s expansive executive powers memo.
So what do you think Senator Barack Obama would have said if President George W. Bush had pursued these policies? And how do you think the press and the political class would have reacted?
Let me suggest as well that a man who feels wholly at ease with drone strikes that have killed American citizens suspected of engaging in terrorist activities without the benefit of a trial and which have, in the process, killed hundreds of innocent people should be a tad bit more careful when it comes to lecturing about the immorality of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs). Joe Scarborough, for example, argued that what Bush did with EITs is “child’s play” compared to what Obama has done.
To put things in a slightly different way: During the 2008 campaign and much of the early part of his presidency, Barack Obama obsessively argued that waterboarding all of three individuals–September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and senior al-Qaeda leaders Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri–was a violation of human rights and a grave moral offense. Here’s the thing, though: unlike Mr. Obama’s drone strikes, no American citizens, no terrorists and no innocent children have died due to waterboarding. Yet the president’s press spokesman is defending Mr. Obama’s policies as “legal,” “ethical,” and “wise.”
Which leads me to two conclusions. The first is that it’s not always easy to navigate the murky waters of law, morality, and war and terrorism, at least when you’re in the White House and have an obligation to protect the country from massive harm. (After they were revealed, I had several long conversations with White House colleagues trying to sort through the morality of waterboarding and indefinite detention.)
The second is that it is true that there is a serious argument to be made that during wartime targeting terrorists, including Americans, with drones is justified. But that justification probably best not come from someone who has spent much of the last half-dozen years or so sermonizing against waterboarding, accusing those who approved such policies of trashing American ideals and shredding our civil liberties, and portraying himself as pure as the new-driven snow. Because any person who did so would be vulnerable to the charge of moral preening and moral hypocrisy.
While I am as tempted as the next guy to knock Obama’s and the Dems’ hypocrisy, I still find it disturbing that most of the right seems to be eager to team up with the ACLU, Amnesty International and the NY Times editorial page to denounce the use of drones generally and targeting the likes of al Awlaki in particular. The right is giving aid and comfort to those around the world who never cease in their efforts to undermine US policies and actions. We should be pleased that Obama has taken up his responsibilities to protect the nation and say so.
Hypocrisy might as well be a synonym for politician, and calling out hypocrisy in politics can be a full-time job. I always believed during the Bush years that if Al Gore or Bill Clinton had been President then, both the military attack on Afghanistan and the global campaign by CIA against al Qaeda through rendition, black sites, indefinite detention and rough interrogation would have happened pretty much as it did under Bush. The difference would have been, I hoped and expected, strong support from the right.
I completely agree. The Obama administration is mostly right on this particular issue. Robert Jackson said it best: the Constitutions should not be turned into a suicide pact.
I to agree and let me add that individuals that who join a terrorist group, leave this country and do all they can to kill our personel abroad have surrendered their citizenship and become viable targets for drone strikes. The criteria for calling in a drone strike should be very high and adhered to tenaciously. A panel of of legal beagles must vote yea, then the JCS gives its OK and the Prez makes the final determination. Then and only then dose the creep in question get his ticket punched.
"individuals that who join a terrorist group, leave this country and do all they can to kill our personel abroad…" n nHow do you know all that is true? Because the president says so?
Meaning we can ignore the constitution whenever we find it inconvenient?
Heh… Obama is doing things in the national interest, but Bush wasn't? The thing about the killing of an American citizen (and Awlaki deserved it many-fold) is that it sets a precedent of murk over who can kill an American citizen and when. If you don't get this out into the light (this IS a democracy, right?), it will be worse next time. As it is, Obama and some pals of his can now designate anyone they want to kill and justify it with Holder's interpretations. That cannot stand. Add that to all the other things Obama has done without advice and consent and you have a runaway president… a president who openly tells people that the other branches of Democracy are getting in his way so he's going around them.
I would have to disagree. The anti-drone 'allies' may be reprehensible, but so is the current widespread deployment of drones. We should be proactive in responding to threats, but a continued hostile military presence in another country should be approved by Congress. We should either commit to sustained action with definable objectives or limit military action to extraordinary circumstances. n nThe precedent which has been set allows too much freedom of action without public approval. The targets presently being eliminated are likely securing a safer future for the US, however without proper controls in place the government/public divide will only increase. This paves the way to being able to fight entire wars without ever needing consent of the governed. That thought should scare any self-aware citizen.
And look at the man that wields this power. HIs administration set in course a criminal pursuit of the film-maker that they initially tried to set up as a straw man on which to blame Benghazi; they have shown certain levels of sympathy and alliance with foreign leaders and movements that misuse the meaning of the word "terrorist", and they can barely stomach using the term when it comes to identifying true terrorists.
Never was and never will be a fan of Obama. But guess what ..I actually read the white paper put out by the DOG. The law is solid. Drone attacks are about the law of war not the US Constitution. Would the US have had to curtail D-Day or the fire bombing of Dresden during WW2 if there were American citizens living with and siding with Nazi Germany? How about when the US attacked Afghanistan or Iraq would we have had to delay or not attack these nations if we couldn't provide 5th amendment due process to those Americans siding with our enemies? No. n nThe issue is how to handle this new era of modern warfare nothing more and nothing less.The White paper lays out exactly when a drone attack is applicable and under what circumstances. As Ambassador Bolton said, its not as if Obama is going to be targeting the local Starbucks. That the final OK for the attacks are left up to the commander in chief, is the nature of the job and the laws of war.That he relies on the intelligence community for his information,well its also the same intelligence community that gave us WMDs in Iraq. (Personally I think they were moved to Syria along with the leaders of the Iraqi Bath party) n nThat there is a reality between living in the White House and wanting to be in the White House is nothing new. Stop whining about Obama's hypocrisy. Be glad that he finally got one thing right.
I'm a little behind on my Augustine and Aquinus reading, so since you have read the white paper perhaps you can fill me in on how the document could be used to authorize the targeted killing of Al Awlaki's sixteen year-old son.
Sadly there is collateral damage in war. The same happens whether you use conventional methods or modern technology. War is hell for a reason. When you sanitize the realities of war then that is when you lose perspective. n nFurthermore, if you decide the USA cannot defend itself because there will be collateral damage then we might as well just let those that hate us come in and take over. Why is it the fault of the USA that our enemies take their civilians into military training camps and then somehow we are responsible for those deaths? There is a reason that using human shields is a war crime and it is not the fault of the USA that Awaliki chose to place his nephew in such danger.
"Drone attacks are about the law of war not the US Constitution." n nSo the Constitution has no say over the "law of war"? The last time I checked it said only Congress can declare war, which it hasn't done in Pakistan or Yemen (two of the countries in which drones are being used). Your WWII example is a false analogy because, in that case, Congress actually did its job and declared war first (the last time it did so, in fact). If the issue is "how to handle this new era of modern warfare," as you suggest, then either we need to modify the Constitution to allow the country to adapt to the new era, or we need to stop pretending the Constitution ever matters.
The Constitution also names the President as Commander in chief. It is POTUS' decisions on how wars are run, not the Congress. The only leverage Congress has is the pocketbook. Congress has decided to fund the drone program and all actions concerning the war on terror. Technically the Congress by funding the military programs in and of itself declared war. n nSecond, while Congress can declare war there is no requirement that those words ever be used specifically. In fact Jefferson declared war on the Barbary pirates without ever having Congress pass any legislation or use those specific words. The only time in modern history that those words actually were ever used was during WW2 when FDR decided ti was politically expedient.. No such resolution was passed before we invaded Afghanistan nor Iraq. Congress merely gave the President the right to decide when and where to defend the country. The Constitution doesn't need to be rewritten. it works just fine when you actually understand its powers and limitations.
I am glad he changed his mind about this; it is one of the only wise things he has done as President.
Barack Obama's foreign policy is as follows: n n1) accuse someone of being a terrorist, n2) kill him.
While I agree that it would be better from an intelligence point of view to capture rather than kill some of these Al Qaeda terrorists, I have a hard time arguing that we should not be killing them with drones. The Americans targeted had clearly given aid and comfort to our enemies. In other words, they committed treason. Killing them on foreign battlefields, like Yemen, should not be much of a stretch for conservatives. We should not succumb to the equivalent of Bush derangement syndrome. Just because Obama is doing it does not necessarily mean it's wrong. In fact, because the One they were waiting for, Saint Obama, did it the precedent for a Republican to repeat it becomes much stronger. Remember, if liberals argue against Obama killing terrorists they are being racist.
If they committed treason, then prove it in a court of law with two witnesses, like the Constitution requires. Yemen is not a battlefield. n
Where, pray tell, is the battlefield?
There is no battlefield, remember? The "War on Terror" doesn't exists. It was a term made up by the evil Bushitler!
Read the constitution. Only Congress can declare war. It has not done so. Therefore, there is no battlefield, anywhere. End of discussion.
And when, pray tell, was the last time Congress declared war? Vietnam was not a battlefield. Korea – not a battlefield. Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan… nI'm afraid the discussion is just beginning.
If Dubya had done this, the press and the Dems would have tried to impeach him.__I don't have a problem with drones. It is the hypocrisy that is nauseating.
Yes, there is a lot of hypocrisy on the left, but there are also many who are disgusted with Obama and have said so. Read Glenn Greenwald for one.
Torture, including water boarding is always wrong. Murdering people not on the field of combat with drones is always wrong. If you don't realize that, then you are defective.
Al Qaeda killing almost 3,000 unarmed civilians is a war crime. Yemen is a guerilla war battlefield. Making videos promoting terrorism is treason, with lots of internet witnesses. According to csmallo, I'm defective. Given the alternative of surrendering to Al Qaeda, I can live with that.
"Always". Dangerous word, always. "Torture, including water boarding, is always wrong." The problem with that statement is the qualifier – "including water boarding". See, now you've opened a can of worms. What exactly is torture? I agree that torture is (almost) always wrong, but we might disagree on what torture is.
Don't agree with your statement. The border between pressure and torture is open to debate. We need to extract information from detainees promptly to deter potential attacks and planned destruction. Murder? Come on! The leadership of Al quaeda has declared in multiple public forums its intention to destroy infidels. That means all nonbelievers, regardless of nationality. n nThe Constitution is not a suicide pact. We have an obligation to our families to ensure not only their safety in the moment, but their survival and prosperity in the future.
Honestly, who does not believe that this memo was intentionally leaked at this moment so it would be the focus of the Brennan confirmation hearing? However some may wish to deny it, President Obama, with an abundance of slight of hand, is a very deft polititian. He benefits when criticized both from the left and when an amazing number of Republicans walk right into his traps. Will they again?
Conservatives should applaud Obama's embracing of reality, while consistently reminding the American people of his once quite staunch (and apparently insincere) opposition to harsh anti-terror policies. And not just Obama – it was most of his Party. Now that Bush and Cheney have been vindicated, can we discuss how many Americans and others died as a result of the moral preening of Obama and other prominent Democrats and liberals, which served no purpose except give the impression that the United States could be defeated if enough people were brutally murdered by barbaric terrorists and their state supporters?
Water boarding is NOT OK. Barack Obama. n nHowever, killing unconvicted US Citizens with a drone. Fine. nHmm, who decided the intel was OK to justify this? The same guys who did the intel for Benghazi? n nHmm. n n
Nothing in our constitution stops us from the drone strikes or torture. You don’t have to like torture but it is effective and productive. Let’s face it, our people are going to be tortured and no one will be held accountable. It is war and it is ugly. The fifth amendment does not apply during a time of war or on a battle field. Yes it is wrong if arrested for a crime like robbery or even murder but you cannot compare the commission of a crime with a war. As a country we might not care for the prosecution of a war but we must realize that any attempts to blunt the brutality postpone the end of the war. There is no kindness until fighting ends. Stomach all that war means or don’t go. Torture and drone strikes are part of it. If you have no problem with a sniper shooting someone planting a roadside bomb or shooting at our troops why do you care how he is killed? At the end of the day we must do what we have to, to end it quickly. Doing otherwise prolongs the war and conveys weakness.
Definition of Hypocrisy under Obama: It is illegal to "waterboard" a US citizen (with or without due process) but it is legal to kill that same US Citizen (without due process)….yea this guy is perfectly normal.
If it weren't for hypocrisy there would be no political left. It is what they are made of. They do everything "for the children" including killing them; they want to eliminate poverty, and make more of it; they talk a lot about rights, and then deprive people of them; they search for peace, and get us into wars that will "end all wars"; they talk about representative government and making every vote count, and then fly to their second home in Florida so they can vote twice as often as you do, and do nothing about the votes of the dead, as long as they benefit from it in power (remember Chesterton's 'democracy of the dead'? This is their version of it.); they call Bush a murderer, and then go him one better.
Being a bit of a Rightist myself I must commend you for spelling out to me very clearly the moral squalor some of us anti-liberals have fallen into. I needed to see how some of us could sink so low as to endorse such horrors. You are basically endorsing the monstrous action of killing people by drones – without evidence, without trial, without nothing. n nNow that some on the Right want to adopt the morals of some on the Left I no longer want any part of it, and I can now better understand that old French saying: "My son, beware of the Left; but my son, beware of the Right."