Obama's Memo on Killing Americans Twists 'Imminent Threat' Like Bush
By 138 The confidential document provides the most thorough account yet of why the president thinks extrajudicial drone strikes on citizens are okay.
Reuters
All hail NBC's Michael Isikoff, who has gotten his hands on a previously undisclosed Obama Administration memo concluding that, under certain circumstances, the U.S. government can kill Americans with drones. The 16-page memo, which you can read at the bottom of this post, is going to be analyzed for days by legal experts, but I encourage you to read it so that you can understand how badly President Obama has behaved, regardless of how you feel about the legal arguments.
On reading the unredacted document, ask yourself, why wasn't this released to the public by the Obama Administration? Which part of its legal reasoning could jeopardize national security in any way? Since it reveals no national-security secrets, what possible justification could there be for willfully keeping its contents from Americans, who have a compelling interest in understanding, scrutinizing and debating the legal framework that surrounds extrajudicial killing?
If you've gone ahead and read it, you know the basics. As Charlie Savage and Scott Shane explain, Obama Administration lawyers say killing an American would be lawful if an "informed, high-level official" determined three things:
- That the target is a ranking Al-Qaeda figure.
- That he or she poses "an imminent threat of violent attack" against America.
- That capture is not "feasible."
But the part of the memo worth dwelling on most, at least until legal experts offer deeper analysis than I confidently can, is the portion that deals with "an imminent threat of violent attack."
On reading the document, that clause is sort of reassuring. After all, there aren't that many circumstances when an attack is imminent. It would seem to severely constrain extrajudicial assassinations.
As it turns out, however, the memo reassures the reader with the rhetorically powerful word "imminent," only to define imminence down in a way that makes it largely meaningless -- so much so that it's actually reminiscent of George W. Bush's misuse of imminent to characterize the threat posed by Iraq. It's difficult to adequately emphasize how absurd this part of the document becomes. What does it mean, for you personally, when you hear that someone poses "an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States"? Do you have an answer in your head?
Okay, here's the darkly hilarious passage where the Obama Administration tries to disabuse you of it:
Certain aspects of this legal framework require additional explication. First, 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 will take place in the immediate future.You can't make this stuff up.
And remember the part about how killings were only kosher if capture wasn't feasible? Well, there's a caveat:
Regarding the feasibility of capture, capture would not be feasible if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country were to decline to consent to a capture operation. Other factors such as undue risk to U.S. personnel conducting a potential capture operation also could be relevant. Feasibility would be a highly fact-specific and potentially time-sensitive inquiry.There's much more to the memo. Stay tuned for more analysis in this space. For now, the takeaway is that the Obama Administration took a process that is supposed to constrain the president within the law's confines; nodded toward the notion that they can kill only if capture is infeasible and the threat of attack imminent; and then qualified those constraints so drastically that it would be more honest to acknowledge that neither imminence nor infeasible capture are really required.
One more note, via Charlie Savage, for folks who follow this subject closely: "The paper is not the classified memorandum in which the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel signed off on the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was born in New Mexico and who died in an American drone strike in Yemen in September 2011. But its legal analysis -- citing a national right to self-defense as well as the laws of war -- closely tracks the rationale in that document, as described to The New York Times in October 2011 by people who had read it."
Marcy Wheeler adds that "there is abundant reason to believe that the members of the Senate committees who got this white paper aren't convinced it describes the rationale the Administration actually used."
Now you know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama has committed criminal acts against the Constitution
http://www.sodahead.com 07/05/10
Republican and Libertarian leaders are all aware that Obama has committed criminal acts against the Constitution. They are all letting the nation down by not demanding his resignation and investigation of his criminal activities. Here are the 27+1 charges and complaints we demand action on, read below:
Charges against the Obama Administration to be investigated:
1. The Obama Administration committed fraud by issuing the following report as a true an attested production of the seven-member committee from the National Academy of Engineering on deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico: INCREASED SAFETY MEASURES FOR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF on MAY 27, 2010 – Issued by Ken Salazar;
2. The Obama Administration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought, circumvented the Constitution in particular, the Senate of the United States of America’s role to “Advise and Consent” on appointees referred to as “czars” or Presidential Advisors on at least 25 occasions;
3. The Obama Administration has seized, or caused to be seized private assets without the consent of Congress or Due Process through the Judicial Branch. i.e. – AIG, General Motors, Chrysler, and others;
4. The Obama Administration has committed bribery in garnering votes from Senators Landrieu of Louisiana, Nelson of Nebraska for the passage of H.R.3590 Title: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act;
5. The Obama Administration has sealed, sequestered, or caused to be sealed and/or sequestered vital documents of Constitutional importance which are subject to public disclosure in express violation of 44 U.S.C. § 2201;
6. The Obama Administration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought, accused the United States of America of wrong doing while on foreign soil;
7. The Obama Administration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought, usurped or seeks to usurp the sovereignty of the several states along the border of Mexico, and the Gulf Coast;
8. The Obama Administration has failed to secure the safety of United States citizens, their property, their livelihood, and their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by not enforcing Federal Laws on illegal entry into the United States of America through its many borders and points of debarkation;
9. The Obama Administration has committed several open and notorious acts of lying and making fraudulent statements to mislead the Congress and the citizens of the United States of America under color of authority;
10. The Obama Administration has, by acts of omission, malfeasance, dereliction of duty, and onerous disregard for the safety of the United States of America, her citizens, and those legally residing in the country allowed enemies of the state to invade the country, causing death, mayhem, and gross property damage;
11. The Obama Administration has, by acts of omission, malfeasance, dereliction of duty, and onerous disregard of the law, allowed foreign nationals to wrest the possession of Federal and private property from the citizens of the United States of America;
12. The Obama Administration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought caused the property of citizens to be confiscated and then redistributed such property to others without due process, Congressional Enactment, or by order of a court;
13. The Obama Administration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought sought to convey the sovereignty of the United States of America, in whole, or in part, to foreign entities and the United Nations;
14. The Obama Administration has by acts of omission, malfeasance, dereliction of duty, and onerous disregard, caused the death, and/or injury of United States of America military personnel and allied forces of other nations;
15. The Obama Administration has by acts of omission, malfeasance, dereliction of duty, and onerous disregard, caused or is attempting to cause the economy of the United States of America to decline precipitously;
16. The Obama Administration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought, committed the citizens of the United States of America to unmanageable, unrecoverable debt to foreign entities;
17. The Obama Administration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought, given aid and comfort to enemies of the United States of America by causing tax payer funds to be expended on behalf known terrorist organizations such as Hamas and others, and has caused said sworn enemies to be transported to the United States of America endangering her citizenry;
18. The Obama Administration has feloniously interfered with local elections by offering goods in return for action by candidates in several states in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 595, and 18 U.S.C. § 600;
19. The Obama Administration has caused to be created, a list of enemies, and has openly and notoriously slandered several United States Citizens, legal institutions, citizen groups, and law enforcement agencies;
20. The Obama Administration has hired, and/or appointed tax evaders, felons, associates of enemies of the state, associates of known terrorists, and known supporters of communism to positions within the Federal government;
21. The Obama Administration has by acts of omission, malfeasance, dereliction of duty, and onerous disregard, failed to enforce, through the Department of Justice, the laws regarding voter intimidation in the case of the Black Panthers in Philadelphia in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 594
22. The Obama Administration has interfered with, promoted, and/or acted with willful and malignant force in the affairs of a foreign nation, and its political process; i.e – Kenya, Indonesia, Pakistan…et al
23. The Obama Adminstration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought, provided information, omitted information, and/or mislead the American public in manner that invalidates any person’s security clearance, especially in the office now held;
24. The Obama Administration, specifically the President of the United States has demonstrably, and without question, manifests psychological deficiencies that preclude him or anyone displaying such deficiencies and mental disorders of holding any security clearance what-so-ever. He is therefore unfit for duty;
25. The Obama Administration has knowingly, willfully, and with malice aforethought, provided information, omitted information, and/or mislead the American public in the use of foreign passports, travel documents, and other Constitutionally important documents concerning foreign citizenship, foreign travel, and foreign allegiances;
26. Mr. Obama, has employed the use of falsified documents, obtained false documents, employed deceptive measures to secure such, and has committed fraud of the American public. i.e. - Multiple Social Security Numbers, one of a person who died before he was born in Connecticut, passports, visas, employment records, financial disclosure statements, and other public domain documents;
27. Mr. Obama is unfit for duty as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, and is unfit to hold clearance for state secrets.
28. Mr. Obama is in violation of the 1st Amendment by authorizing the U.S.Coast Guard to suspend the right of the press to free speech without the benefit of an Act of Congress.
Obama is still president because we are still collecting resignation petitions. Will we have one from you or will you let him remain there for 2-1/2 more years? Sign the petitions, DEMAND THAT HE RESIGN BASED ON THE 27 CHARGES AND COMPLAINTS! The time is now.
Joe Wolverton, II, The New American
Sunday, 18 March 2012 18:00
President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order on March 16 giving the White House absolute control over all the country’s natural resources in case of a natural disaster or during a time of war.
In the order, the National Defense Resources Preparedness Order, the President granted to himself the authority to approve the dispensing of all domestic energy, production, transportation, food, and water supplies as he deems necessary to protect national security.
Despite the national defense hurdle that ostensibly must be jumped in order for the order to take effect, the text of the document itself does not limit implementation to a time of war. In fact, the specific sections of the order make it clear that the President can take complete command and control of the country’s natural resources in peacetime, as well.
In fact, the President may invoke the powers of this order to “meet national defense requirements” in “the full spectrum of emergencies.” The relevant sections read:
Section 101. Purpose. This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the "Act").
Sec. 102. Policy. The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency. The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness. The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.
Sec. 103. General Functions. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:
(a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;
(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;
The underlying legal authority for the execution of such a radical order is found in the Defense Production Act of 1950, the President claims. That law combined with the rights vested in him as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces supposedly empowers the President to endow himself with these expansive powers.
Just how expansive are the claimed powers and what resources are included in their scope? Livestock? Yes. All food “resources” and “resource facilities?” Yes. Veterinary clinics? Yes. All forms of energy? Yes. Will the President control the water supply? Yes.
Read on:
Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities.
(a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.
(c) Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency. In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency.
(d) If agreement cannot be reached between two such Secretaries, then the issue shall be referred to the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
(e) The Secretary of each resource department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under section 101(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(b). This finding shall be submitted for the President's approval through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Upon such approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market.
That’s right. The last line of the quoted material gives the President of the United Staes the power to “control the general distribution of any material (including services) in the civilian market.” This seems to be no less than the nationalization of all food, energy, water, and healthcare pipelines and providers in the country. And to help him keep tabs on all this responsibility, he assigns a cabinet member to each category of control.
Presidents have issued similar orders in the name of national defense. For example, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln famously (infamously) suspended habeas corpus and the right to an impartial trial as protected by the Sixth Amendment.
Then, during World War I, President Woodrow Wilson, frustrated with Congress’s reluctance to grant him a full panoply of power over natural resources, invoked the powers given him under an executive order to assume absolute and unilateral authority over the same range of resources as are included in President Obama’s latest fiat.
As any student of history can testify, when government begins to interfere with the free flow of goods and commodities (especially life-giving resources such as food and water), then it may manipulate the availability of these items, as well as the prices thereof. Typically, such fluctuations result in civil disturbances and a demand for greater security from those unwilling to abide by the new “laws.” And, in exchange for greater security, those clamoring for it are often willing to give up their fundamental freedoms.
The White House has issued no statement regarding the purpose for the signing of this Executive Order. There is no accompanying explanation of why this power should be placed before the President at this time — or at any time for that matter. Is it in place to prepare for expansion of the hostilities in the Middle East, or is it something to do with his vaunted algae initiative?
Perhaps the President is taking the first few steps necessary to cloak himself in the powers required to "legally" (albeit unconstitutionally) step outside the boundaries of his constitutional authority and ascend to a level of supervision witnessed in all the former republics of history just before their devolution into mobocracy and mayhem.
