Meet The New Boss, Just Like The Old Boss

He even has the same friends and defenders http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2013/02/graham-defends-obama-on-drones...

This is world (global) policeman shit. Barack's defenders like the carte blanche to do anything they feel like thing. This is an extension of Cheney's grab for executive powers by the way. It's just being done by the 'good guys' on the other side. In reality Obama is proving himself no better than the people who gave us preemptive war for if this is not the right to preemptive murder it's pretty close. Sometimes I think many of those who say they were against Bush 2's Iraq and Afghanistan adventures were really only against those original perpetrators. America has a place in the world and it's called home--in between its own borders--not perpetrating atrocities around the globe.

This is world (global) policeman shit.

No, it's not. Like it, hate it, the drone memo justifies it if "the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States". He's not claiming the right to get involved in other people's conflicts, he's claiming the right to attack people who threaten the United States.

America has a place in the world and it's called home--in between its own borders--not perpetrating atrocities around the globe.

Which is unrealistic. America had no more option to not respond overseas to 9/11 then it had to not respond overseas to Pearl Harbor.

>3 prosfilaes: 'perpetrating atrocities around the globe'

That is what was sometimes necessary for the engine of expansion to proceed. Case study, murder Lumumba, prop Mobutu, decades of obscene profits

#3: Like it, hate it, the drone memo justifies it if "the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States"

And how many of the CIA's drone attacks have actually met that criteria? And no, threats to "American interests abroad" don't count.

#4: Case study, murder Lumumba, prop Mobutu, decades of obscene profits

And the fact that African forces murdered Lumumba, with the assistance of the Belgians, not Americans, doesn't make any difference to you, does it. Nor does the fact that it's blatantly obvious that we didn't prop Mobutu (the US was the third largest donor of aid to Mobutu, after Belgium and France) for profit, as can be shown by the fact we dropped him like a hot potato after the Soviet Union fell, matter to you.

#3 & #5,

The criteria set forth in the leaked memo only deals with the targeting of U.S. citizens. I don't know what criteria they use to decide when targeting non-U.S. citizens would be allowed. As far as I know, there's been no memos leaked on that.

>What difference does it make morally?

3>
"America has a place in the world and it's called home--in between its own borders--not perpetrating atrocities around the globe.

Which is unrealistic. America had no more option to not respond overseas to 9/11 then it had to not respond overseas to Pearl Harbor."

Responding is not the same as committing attrocities.

~3

"No, it's not. Like it, hate it, the drone memo justifies it if "the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States". He's not claiming the right to get involved in other people's conflicts, he's claiming the right to attack people who threaten the United States."

The right is being claimed for any member of the top executive, without any oversight of their actions and decisions, to kill American citizens who THEY DEEM in their sole discretion to be an imminent or continuing threat to the US. Period. Abolish 600 years of habeas corpus. Period. No doubt about it this time.

"Which is unrealistic. America had no more option to not respond overseas to 9/11 then it had to not respond overseas to Pearl Harbor."

Really. And tell us what good it did after 9/11. A regime of crazy fanatics (which was probably only remotely connected to 9/11) was temporarily overthrown. And the "temporarily" is advisory, since it is now crystal clear that the only way that the US is going to get out of Afghanistan is approve of some sort of coalition containing the same crazies. Then there was the overthrow of a completely unrelated regime - but whose dictator had previously embarrassed the father of the President. No option. Of course, no option if you just must chant the slogans of the day and can't think for yourself.

#8,

It's a question of law, not morality. The U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens or to foreign nationals on U.S. territory (or perhaps also to foreign nationals, wherever they may be, when they are in the physical custody of agents of the U.S. government). The Drone Memo discusses the legality of U.S. targeted attacks on U.S. citizens under, in part, the U.S. Constitution. As such, the criteria used to establish the legality of such attacks on US citizens does not necessarily apply to establishing the legality of such attacks against foreign nationals.

if law and morality are separate, why have law?

Besides, in the case I mentioned, it was the US multinationals who benefited most from Mobutu's reign.

Law and morality are not separate. In fact, they often deal with the same issues. But morality does not address all things covered by the law because morality addresses right and wrong, whereas the law goes beyond that realm.

The Drone memo does not address the morality of conducting targeted attacks, only their legality as they relate specifically to U.S. citizens abroad.

Of course it doesn't. The point I made was that there is no moral difference between killing US citizens and others..

“The process of being targeted I think is legal, quite frankly laborious and should reside in the commander in chief to determine who an enemy combatant is and what kind of force to use,”

So, if the POTUS and other, reasonable, high-level executive officials determined that a protest within the United States (Occupy Wall Street, let's say) was composed of enemy combatants, then launching a drone strike would be perfectly reasonable? After all, there would be an undue risk of escape if the police attempted to arrest anyone in that mob scene.

But then, we don't want to subject the government to any more labor than is necessary; they already work quite hard enough. Expecting them to do more work merely to adhere to some outdated 18th century notion of law is clearly unreasonable.

I have to say that I really regret voting for Obama back in 2008. Fooled into thinking he might be something different and boy was I wrong. Because he's not. Ron Paul has been clear enough in the past about foreign policy--that 1) we should not involve ourselves in other nation's conflicts 2) that our foreign policy should revolve around trade and diplomacy--period and that 3) we should be looking at closing down military bases in other lands. That at least is close to what I think. I don't agree all that much with Paul otherwise but he's right on the money on this.

When Bush-Cheney invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq with the chorus of the neo-cons claiming imminent threats and weapons of mass destruction and the right of preemptive strike most of this country got right on the fucking bandwagon and it turned into years and years of disaster for all but the well connected few who profit from these things. The so-called left--do they really call themselves democrats? bitched and moaned throughout the Bush2/Cheney years--now a good portion of the same are okay with even stronger measures. Obama's administration instead of scaling back on the powers that Bush-Cheney usurped have instead enhanced them. No wonder there were no war crimes trials for the last administration.

This is all shit--as I remarked in#2 much to the disapproval of #3 who obviously refuses to see the vicious cycle we've created for ourselves that will continue to blow back on us until the day we get a president--a congress with some idea that we have a place in the world in which we're willing to stay. We don't have a right to set or force policies in other places.

Back during the Vietnam War Paul Ramsey took a lot of heat for defending the killing of civilians in Vietnam. His reasoning was that once the Viet Cong took to wearing civilian clothes instead of uniforms, and were attacking US troops in civilian clothes, that blurred the distinction between civilian and soldier so much, it was almost meaningless. And with the lives of differing sets of people at stake (soldiers vs civilians) one could not adjudicate fairly between the two, so all bets were off.

(He was silent, I believe, on the issue of whether the war itself was a moral quagmire.)

I am thinking out loud here, but I wonder how that might apply in a "war" on terrorism. Were we to establish that there is an element bent on doing violence to US citizens, and that element has taken to underground means of perpetrating violence, to what extent are we justified in rooting out that element, even if it means the deaths of innocent civilians? If the alternative was to open ourselves up to more 9/11 type attacks, is that any justification for taking out hostile forces as an act of war?

No.

Imperialism is a word that is out of fashion but it still applies.

I have no problem with going after the 9/11 perpetrators. I'm not a pacifist. But there aren't, and never were, simple answers for how to go about it.

In a messy world, there will be mistakes. Nobody likes that, but it would be unrealistic to expect otherwise. "Surgical" action is a myth. So is isolationism, nowadays. American triumphalists and/or unconditional critics might enjoy a personal psychological comfort level but it doesn't jibe with external events or unintended consequences.

Still, even making allowances for a messy world, Bush/Obama have over-reached. The U.S. has. Our screw-ups--even allowing for unforeseen and inevitable mistakes--have been many and egregious. I'm still willing to make some lip service for Obama over-reaching less badly, but that's faint praise and increasingly pointless now.

Broadly speaking, it is time for Yankee to come home. That could bring--will bring--a new set of problems. But right now, I suspect that these problems will be less bad.

#17,

...is that any justification for taking out hostile forces as an act of war?

Not surprisingly, it depends.

The law of war permits the killing of civilians during otherwise legal military actions. The attacking state, however, has an obligation to keep that number as low as possible in light of the threat posed by the intended target and the military necessity of hitting that target at that particular time. Preventing a 9/11-level attack of course permits a higher number of civilian casualties than would preventing a regular level of terrorist attack, but, again of course, it doesn't give a state a blank check to act against the potential perpetrators.

The sticky wicket here is then, to massacre the metaphor, what is the amount on the check? I agree there is no blank check, but what are the limits?

The amount is entirely dependent on what the people can: 1) get away with, and 2) live with.

The poobahs of international law have never, and will never, come to a consensus regarding a ceiling that a state simply can't pass. And that number is, anyhow, contingent upon the situation. The legality of the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima is generally accepted, and probably the bombing of Nagasaki as well (although that one is more hotly debated). But there are a number of international law experts who will say that it was illegal as were the firebombings of Japanese and German cities during the war.

There just comes a point at which the people for whom the killing is supposed to benefit just say it's too much, or some outside power makes that decision for them.

With notable but few exceptions, do international courts have any real power?

#9: Responding is not the same as committing attrocities.

Which was not part of the dichotomy I was given in #3.

#12: Besides, in the case I mentioned, it was the US multinationals who benefited most from Mobutu's reign.

Who cares? The fact that the US probably benefited most of the introduction of smallpox into the New World doesn't mean that the US did introduce it. It's just not as easy for you to pick on Belgium and France as it on the US.

Believe me, it is very easy to pick on Belgium, and these days even easier France, but the subject here is drones, a US matter for now. The CIA was involved in the assassination of Lumumba and installment of Mobutu. Does the fact that they had accomplices make it better?

I would be interested to know where you get your information on me, by the way, because you could have no idea from these posts what is easy for me. If I knew more about you I suppose I would simply dismiss you as someone who categorizes others without a great deal to go on.
'

#23,

With notable but few exceptions, do international courts have any real power?

International courts have power only to the extent that states are willing to submit to their jurisdiction and to follow their judgments, or to the extent that they are unable to resist or undo those judgments. For example, early on Serbia rather vehemently protested the ICTY's proceedings against ethnic Serbs in The Hague, but there was nothing the Serbs could do about it.

Another example is the US reaction to a verdict against it handed down by the International Court of Justice. The ICJ is, in essence, the UN's court; unlike with the International Criminal Court, the US has agreed to submit to its jurisdiction. Nicaragua brought a case in the ICJ against the US for the mining of its harbors that went on in the 1980s. The US was tangentially responsible for that mining because it was providing training and materiel to the contras who were actually laying the mines. The US refused to appear in court to defend against the accusation. The ICJ found for Nicaragua, but the US has refused to acknowledge the verdict.

Even in domestic contexts, courts only have power to the extent that the executive is willing and able to use force to enforce the courts' decisions. That situation is even more pronounced in the international context because international courts don't even have something like the US Marshals, who, while being agents of the executive, are tasked with enforcing federal court orders. International courts are all alone.

#25: the subject here is drones, a US matter for now. The CIA was involved in the assassination of Lumumba and installment of Mobutu

If the subject is drones, then 50 year old matters are irrelevant. Frankly, my sources say that the CIA was not involved in the assassination of Lumumba any more then they were involved in the assassination of Castro; reality gave that role to Congolese revolutionaries and the Belgians.

I would be interested to know where you get your information on me,

Yes, yes, you can give it but not take it out. Any more whining?

More whining: I detest dishonest people.

Your first post is dishonest because you know 'world policeman' came up in the second post.

Your half-quote was in response to: 'It's just not as easy for you to pick on Belgium and France as it on the US.', which is a bizarre assumption given how little you know. You know, of course, that you were being dishonest, but your ego is at stake here.

Finally, your sources are wrong to the point that it is by now common knowledge that the CIA was involved in the assassination of Lumumba. I can't assume your dishonesty on that point, but I can guess that a willful credulity is involved.

#28: Your first post is dishonest because you know 'world policeman' came up in the second post.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, "world policeman" came up in the second post. But those words have meaning, or at least should. It means that the US is going out and getting involved in other people's fights. The drones are not about that; this is our own fight. It's valid to complain about how we're managing that fight, but calling us "world policemen" because of it confuses the issue.

Finally, your sources are wrong to the point that it is by now common knowledge that the CIA was involved in the assassination of Lumumba.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/aug/10/martinkettle

Of course, common knowledge beats actual sources any day, doesn't it?

http://rajpatel.org/2010/08/20/fyi-new-evidence-shows-us-role-in-lumumbas-death/

Why yes; actual sources are very handy.

#30: One person publishing an article in 2010 does not common knowledge make. In any case, good for you. I would have appreciated RickHarsch providing sources instead of abuse.

The general method that U.S. (and other) intelligence services deal with unpleasant revelations is to quitely ignore them, provide no publicity, not even refer to them by name when refuting the assertions. So I can agree that the CIA's involvement in foreign affairs is not common knowledge; the CIA and others in the government are doing their best to see that such information does NOT become commonly known.

There are other sources from 2010 on regarding this particular incident; I merely posted one of the first that seemed reasonably reliable.

And I agree that there's a considerable difference between responding to a cited source with more recent sources contesting the matter, and alleging bad behavior somply because you disagree with the poster's views. e.g. clearly I disagree with you concerning CIA involvement in Lumumba's death; but that doesn't imply any wrong-doing on your part.

> When you are dishonest, calling you on it is not abuse.

As for your source, I would call that a rather legalistic avoidance of implicating the US:

'...Senate intelligence committee's post-Watergate inquiry into US covert action.

The committee concluded that the US was not involved in the murder, though it confirmed that the CIA had conspired to kill Lumumba, possibly on Eisenhower's orders. Recent Belgian parliamentary inquiries into the murder implicated Belgium but failed to come up with a direct US link.'

So the CIA, according to the US government's own investigation, conspired to kill Lumumba, but a Belgian inquiry failed to 'come up with' a direct CIA link. In other words, there is proof of conspiracy but, in Belgium a description of events was not available or whatever.
Given that the CIA is a spy organization is it not surprising that not everything is known? Not really, but I believe the first book I read that revealed a CIA link was by Phillip Agee. Since that time, this citation is the only article I have seen that seems to try to let the US off the hook, though I can't see how it actually does.

Here is another article about Lumumba from the same source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jan/17/patrice...

#32: clearly I disagree with you concerning CIA involvement in Lumumba's death

I'm not sure I'd put the emphasis the same place you would, but between your sources and mine, I'd say it's clear that there were CIA plans to kill him and that the CIA played a significant role--at the very least choosing not to act in any way to prevent it--in his death, and that local forces actually carried out the murder outside of direct CIA control.

I'm still not sure what this has to drone attacks or the modern day outside of Central Africa.

> 30 Excellent article.

Re relevance:

The United States, since it decided to become an empire around the late 19th Century, has used the perks of being an empire by meddling in the internal affairs of other countries for quite some time. Until drones, such meddling was usually kept secret (Bay of Pigs being a notorious exception).

Now, the United States is stating openly that it has the power, and the right, to interfere in the internal affairs of any country on Earth. That's a major change in foreign policy, and drones are the method of imposing that change.

Such meddling was supposed to be secret, but usually (of course, as far as I know) the reports were available; for instance regarding Laos in 1962, the Dominican Republic in 1965, Cambodia in 1970, East Timor in, what, 1977? and so on...

The Dominican Republic doesn't count (at least in this instance); the U.S. has asserted, openly, dominance of the region since the mid-19th Century. A lot of things can be said about the U.S foreign policy in Latin America, but secretive isn't one of them.

And although it was possible to find out about U.S. foreign interventions, the government didn't issue bulletins and papers purporting to justify those actions; instead, they tried to pretend nothing was going on, nothing to see here, move along...

You have to dig it when lawecon channels The Who.

If that was supposed to be the Who, the quotation was garbled....

#39

The declaration of Manifest Destiny hardly means that the innumerable attacks in the hemisphere were not secrets. So, for other instances, the many attempts to kill Castro, the assassination of leaders of Ecuador and Panama.

But this is not a very important distinction in my opinion.

#37: Until drones, such meddling was usually kept secret

The irony is that drone strikes are harder for journalists to cover. There's no clear theater of battle for reporters, embedded or otherwise, to go and document events in a timely fashion. By the time you get there the story's over and you've only got a pile of rubble and the word of locals about who might have been hit.

>43 Lunar: But the stories are intensively covered by local journalists and the body counts are very high.

#44: Reporting body counts is not journalism except when it's a story about the US fudging the civilian count to seem lower than it actually is. Journalists need to be on the scene asking questions when they are fresh in the witnesses' memory. This story mentions some of the issues I was getting at.

Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya all have journalists.