Lawmakers Consider Regulating Drone Strikes

[MMC]

WASHINGTON (AP) — CIA Director-designate John Brennan's vigorous defense of drone strikes to kill terror suspects — even American citizens — overseas is causing key lawmakers to consider lifting secrecy from what has become an important weapon in the fight against al-Qaida.
Brennan, President Barack Obama's top counterterror adviser, was grilled for more than three hours Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee on the drone program he leads, as well as on the CIA's harsh interrogation techniques during the Bush administration, which he denounced, and on leaks of classified information to the media, which Brennan vehemently denied being a part of.

The committee's chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told reporters after the hearing that she wanted to open more of the program to the public so U.S. officials can acknowledge the strikes and correct what she said were exaggerated reports of civilian casualties.

Feinstein said she and other senators were considering legislation to set up a special court system to regulate drone strikes, similar to the one that signs off on government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases.

Speaking with uncharacteristic openness about the classified program, Feinstein said that the CIA had allowed her staff to make more than 30 visits to the agency's northern Virginia headquarters to monitor strikes but that such transparency needed to be increased. Her comments came after the White House, under pressure from the committee, gave senators on the panel a Justice Department memo outlining the legal justification for drone strikes. But senators complained that their staff wasn't allowed to see it.

"I think the process set up internally is a solid process," Feinstein said of the methods used to decide when to launch drones and against whom, but added: "I think there's an absence of knowing exactly who is responsible for what decision. So I think we need to look at this whole process and figure a way to make it transparent and identifiable."

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said his panel also had been looking at establishing a "court-like entity" to review the strikes.

"I think the House and Senate ought to put their heads together and come up with some way to require either initially or after the fact, a review of an operation when it takes the life of an American citizen," Schiff said.....snip~

Lawmakers consider regulating drone strikes - Yahoo! News
<<<<< More here, way more.

Did Brennan's Testimony prove anything about the issue of American Citizens abroad or anywhere else? Are the Democrats grandstanding over this issue? Feinstein hits the nail on the head about knowing who is exactly responsible. As Holder explained it just didn't have to be the President but any Senior officials that could make the call.

Consider already one City has filed a resolution concerning the use of Drones over an American City. Which their idea was so that other cities would do the same thing. Which more and more of them doing so puts it on the National level. But do we need the creation of a Special Court system to Regulate Drone Strikes?

 

[BmanMcfly]

WASHINGTON (AP) — CIA Director-designate John Brennan's vigorous defense of drone strikes to kill terror suspects — even American citizens — overseas is causing key lawmakers to consider lifting secrecy from what has become an important weapon in the fight against al-Qaida.

National security will be argued.

The committee's chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told reporters after the hearing that she wanted to open more of the program to the public so U.S. officials can acknowledge the strikes and correct what she said were exaggerated reports of civilian casualties.

Because if a building is blown up to kill one terrorist, the others in proximity must be terrorist not civilian.

Did Brennan's Testimony prove anything about the issue of American Citizens abroad or anywhere else?

You mean abroad or ON AMERICAN SOIL?!

Are the Democrats grandstanding over this issue? Feinstein hits the nail on the head about knowing who is exactly responsible. As Holder explained it just didn't have to be the President but any Senior officials that could make the call.

Consider already one City has filed a resolution concerning the use of Drones over an American City. Which their idea was so that other cities would do the same thing. Which more and more of them doing so puts it on the National level. But do we need the creation of a Special Court system to Regulate Drone Strikes?

I was always saying, armed drones in the skies would be the best police force, (sarcasm)

 

[ttwtt78640]

We need to decide if an undeclared "war" allows zapping folks anywhere, any time that "senior officials" deem it to be "the right thing to do". It is obvious that we will never "try" those held in Gitmo, so zap them all and save us some serious money.

Gitmo Costs $800K/Year Per Detainee | Mother Jones

 

[sawyerloggingon]

obama himself needs to step out of the shadows and tell us why Gitmo is inhumane, water boarding is torture but killing suspected terrorist along with any innocent civilian in close proximity is perfectly acceptable. Don't hold your breath.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

We need to decide if an undeclared "war" allows zapping folks anywhere, any time that "senior officials" deem it to be "the right thing to do". It is obvious that we will never "try" those held in Gitmo, so zap them all and save us some serious money.

Gitmo Costs $800K/Year Per Detainee | Mother Jones

You know that is a good point, why not just kill these Gitmo terrorist. What is the difference with killing them in Gitmo and killing them in some house in Pakistan along with their wife and kids? It could be argued a mass Gitmo execution is far more humane with no collateral damage. Think Ill get a bumper sticker made. BOMB GITMO

 

[Wiseone]

We need to decide if an undeclared "war" allows zapping folks anywhere, any time that "senior officials" deem it to be "the right thing to do". It is obvious that we will never "try" those held in Gitmo, so zap them all and save us some serious money.

Gitmo Costs $800K/Year Per Detainee | Mother Jones

I tottally agree that Gitmo needs to be closed and the individuals there need to be put through the legal process and go their seperate ways after that process depending on the results. Any intel these guys had is long long long past its usefulness and its a horrible example of American freedom and rule of law to show the world. Hell we even gave the Nazis a trial, not because they deserved it, but because we held ourselves to a higher standard, no so anymore it seems.

Personally I blame the Congress for refusing to allow really any option for moving this process forward to pass, they are simply content to let these people and the whole concept of the virtues of American justice to rot until the end of time.

 

[Risky Thicket]

1. No drones in the U.S., ever. None means none.
2. No killing Americans with drones, period.
3. Drones should only be used in war.
4. America cannot declare acts of war on its own people. See 1 and 2.
5. Washington must obey the Constitution. Only Congress can declare war.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

LOL - pass something stupid and I gaurantee you in 20 years everyone will forget about it and just ignore it because that's what washington does best . . .they'll just do it anyway. Who gives a ****.

No one in government has the balls to stand up to the president these days with real **** like impeachment when he's a ****ing moron - or taking their power and shutting down illicit war operations that they don't agree with.

Yeah - they can bitch all they want but they'll do little to intervene even when it's in their power and their power alone.

 

[Helix]

I'd like to see improved oversight of the program.

most of all, I'd like to see us go back to being a country for a while. we have plenty to fix here at home.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You know that is a good point, why not just kill these Gitmo terrorist. What is the difference with killing them in Gitmo and killing them in some house in Pakistan along with their wife and kids? It could be argued a mass Gitmo execution is far more humane with no collateral damage. Think Ill get a bumper sticker made. BOMB GITMO

Drop them from 20,000 feet over the ocean and claim that they "escaped".

 

[jamesrage]

Do we Need a Special Court Sytem Set Up to Regualte Drone Strikes?

Personally I think drone should only be allowed in countries we are at war with.If we are going to be sending drones into countries we are not at war with then there should be a special court system to regulate drone strikes.

 

[MMC]

Right here they are telling us this is the next generation of surveillance with the use of drones. Moreover consider how may have already been over American cities and took a snapshot already.

Now Again I think there has to be some sort of responsibility for whatever Senior Official makes the call. Because which Dept would it fall under? If an American they would need to have some sort of evidence that they are connected to a terrorist group and not due to one pitchin a bitch and protesting what an Adminstration does. There cannot be vague language when to concerns Americans Citizens and their Rights. Regardless of what International law is.

Also lets not forget that the UN is and has been investigating the US over the use of drones and the collateral damaged caused. Pakistan which threw up the photos of the lil kids that were killed, as well as others when within the vicinity of drone strikes.

But why would there be a Need to set up some sort of New System? Shouldn't we be able to delegate this to a Court system we have now?

 

[Paschendale]

How about we just stop killing people and focus on addressing the things that make terrorists angry with us, like meddling in their countries and the poverty that most of those nations live with? That's how we'll build a safer world, not atop a pile of corpses.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

How about we just stop killing people and focus on addressing the things that make terrorists angry with us, like meddling in their countries and the poverty that most of those nations live with? That's how we'll build a safer world, not atop a pile of corpses.

What?

No

No no - that makes no sense what so ever (sarcasm)

 

[MMC]

Well Texas as a State has filed legislation now.....Fisher Already showed us the City in Virginia. Which the video already showed one city they took pictures of in Virginia.

Texas would have the toughest anti-drone legislation in the country under a bill filed by State Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Terrell).

1200 WOAI's Michael Board reports that Gooden has introduced a measure which would outlaw the use of drones by individuals, or state or federal law enforcement.

Read more: Texas "Anti Drone" Laws Would be Toughest in USA - NewsRadio 1200 WOAI, San Antonio

 

[Hard Truth]

You know that is a good point, why not just kill these Gitmo terrorist. What is the difference with killing them in Gitmo and killing them in some house in Pakistan along with their wife and kids? It could be argued a mass Gitmo execution is far more humane with no collateral damage. Think Ill get a bumper sticker made. BOMB GITMO

Why destroy the buildings when they can be reused? Gas chambers are the preferred method for mass executions and a great way to show the world what kind of nation we have become.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I may not fully understand your system of government, but wouldn't any congressional restrictions place on the President in the conduct of war be unconstitutional - and if the drone strikes are not part of a war effort, wouldn't the killing of Americans via drones be unconstitutional and perhaps murder?

 

[Hard Truth]

How about we just stop killing people and focus on addressing the things that make terrorists angry with us, like meddling in their countries and the poverty that most of those nations live with? That's how we'll build a safer world, not atop a pile of corpses.

But what about the profits from oil and selling weapons?

 

[specklebang]

Then we must elect a Democrat as President.

How about we just stop killing people and focus on addressing the things that make terrorists angry with us, like meddling in their countries and the poverty that most of those nations live with? That's how we'll build a safer world, not atop a pile of corpses.

 

[MMC]

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.
The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans. “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

Here was the wording.....

It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

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,” the memo states.

Instead, it says, 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.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.....snip~


This is what the arguments are over for killing an American. Again it isn't just about the President making the call. Any Senior Official, and this is despite the dramatic increase in use of drone attacks. As well as what department and what Official has such an authority.

This does not count any International Law nor any Foreign Complicity. Do we really need to set up some sort of Special Court System like Feinstein and some other Democrats are proposing. If the House and Senate Intel Committees can hold hearings and conduct an investigation. What need is there for a Special Court System.

The one thing I see with the hearings.....when bringing someone forth for questioning. Is the Hiding behind the Words of National Security. First if one is being called to testify. Then there has been some sort of screw up in the first place. So IMO there should be no EXCUSE to be used with the rational. Meaning such cannot be used to ignore questioning or to avoid answering.

 

[MMC]

In answers to pre-hearing questions released Wednesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Brennan said no further legislation was necessary to conduct operations against al-Qaida wherever it's operating.

"There is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely piloted aircraft for this purpose or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield, at least when the country involved consents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat," Brennan said at the time.....snip~


Jay Carney said this morning.

“The President takes these issues very seriously, and he believes that the conversation about this is valid and that the questions about it are legitimate. And that’s why he has been leading this process internally to — as has John Brennan, by the way — to provide public information as much as possible, mindful of the fact that we are talking about here very sensitive matters, and that these kinds of things — they’re classification — information is classified for very legitimate reasons that go right to our national security interest.....snip~


Now it was Obama that stated he wanted the American People to know as much as possible. Yet, all Obama did was open the door for the Memo and Brennan's Hearing for Confirmation. Then Obama immediately cut off any flow of information again citing EP and National Security allowing the Memo but sending no other info with it.

Wyden already complained as well as others saying their staff never received any other information. What caught my attention was Wyden asking Brennan to look into the matter. When one.....he hasn't been confirmed yet. Two.....how would Brennan be able to go around Obama in the first place.

Sure Obama agree questions are legitimate and valid. He just agrees that they should now not be discussed publicly.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Why destroy the buildings when they can be reused? Gas chambers are the preferred method for mass executions and a great way to show the world what kind of nation we have become.

Tell obama he is bombing homes.

 

[MMC]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - During a fresh round of debate this week over President Barack Obama's claim that he can unilaterally order lethal strikes by unmanned aircraft against U.S. citizens, some lawmakers proposed a middle ground: a special federal "drone court" that would approve suspected militants for targeting.

While the idea of a judicial review of such operations may be gaining political currency, multiple U.S. officials said on Friday that imminent action by the U.S. Congress or the White House to create one is unlikely. The idea is being actively considered, however, according to a White House official.

At Thursday's confirmation hearing for CIA director nominee John Brennan, senators discussed establishing a secret court or tribunal to rule on the validity of cases that U.S. intelligence agencies draw up for killing suspected militants using drones.

The court could be modeled on an existing court which examines applications for electronic eavesdropping on suspected spies or terrorists.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Thursday that she planned to "review proposals for ... legislation to ensure that drone strikes are carried out in a manner consistent with our values, and the proposal to create an analogue of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the conduct of such strikes."

Senator Angus King, a Maine independent, said during the hearing that he envisioned a scenario in which executive branch officials would go before a drone court "in a confidential and top-secret way, make the case that this American citizen is an enemy combatant, and at least that would be ... some check on the activities of the executive."
King suggested that only drone attacks on U.S. citizens would need court approval; other proposals leave open the possibility that such a court could also rule regarding drone strikes on non-Americans.

Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, questioned the need for creating a new court to review drone targeting lists.

"We have courts that are fully capable and experienced" in dealing with sensitive national security matters, he said. Federal courts in Washington, New York City, and Alexandria, Virginia, routinely handle highly classified materials yet operate with more transparency and more independence than the ultra-secretive foreign intelligence court, Anders said.

Geoffrey Robertson, one of Britain's most prominent human rights lawyers, described the current U.S. drone-strike policy as "execution without trial" and "international killing (which) ... violates the right to life."

Robertson said that in his interpretation of international law, any court set up to review candidates for possible drone attacks would have to publish target lists, so that those listed would have an opportunity either to give themselves up or be able to have friends or relatives petition for their removal from the lists.....snip~

Support grows for U.S. "drone court" to review lethal strikes

So if they know this will not be done.....then why is Feinstein WASTING the PEOPLES TIME AND MONEY?

 

[Hard Truth]

Murder by the governement should only be legal in declared war zones and after a legitimate (constitutional) trial. That is the law. Criminal should be captured, not executed. Regulating killing by drones anywhere in the world only legitimizes the practice. Government killing by any means, including by drones, should be banned outside of declared war zones.

 

[LowDown]

obama himself needs to step out of the shadows and tell us why Gitmo is inhumane, water boarding is torture but killing suspected terrorist along with any innocent civilian in close proximity is perfectly acceptable. Don't hold your breath.

It's unacceptable torture to spray water in a terrorist's face, but it's acceptable to blow him into tiny bits with an unmanned drone. How about if we use an unmanned drone to spray water in his face? Is that OK?