anarcho-queer:

Obama Administration Refuses To Say If Americans Can Be Killed By Drones On U.S. Soil

The Justice Department “white paper” purporting to authorize Obama’s power to extrajudicially execute US citizens was leaked three weeks ago. Since then, the administration - including the president himself and his nominee to lead the CIA, John Brennan - has been repeatedly asked whether this authority extends to US soil, i.e., whether the president has the right to execute US citizens on US soil without charges. In each instance, they have refused to answer.

Brennan has been asked the question several times as part of his confirmation process. Each time, he simply pretends that the question has not been asked, opting instead to address a completely different issue. Here’s the latest example from the written exchange he had with Senators after his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee; after referencing the DOJ “white paper”, the Committee raised the question with Brennan in the most straightforward way possible:

Obviously, that the US has not and does not intend to engage in such acts is entirely non-responsive to the question that was asked: whether they believe they have the authority to do so. To the extent any answer was provided, it came in Brennan’s next answer. He was asked:

“Could you describe the geographical limits on the Administration’s conduct drone strikes?”

Brennan’s answer was that, in essence, there are no geographic limits to this power: “we do not view our authority to use military force against al-Qa’ida and associated forces as being limited to ‘hot’ battlefields like Afghanistan.” He then quoted Attorney General Eric Holder as saying: “neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan” (see Brennan’s full answer here).

Revealingly, this same question was posed to Obama not by a journalist or a progressive but by a conservative activist, who asked if drone strikes could be used on US soil and “what will you do to create a legal framework to make American citizens within the United States believe know that drone strikes cannot be used against American citizens?” Obama replied that there “has never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil” - which, obviously, doesn’t remotely answer the question of whether he believes he has the legal power to do so. He added that “the rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States”, but these “rules” are simply political choices the administration has made which can be changed at any time, not legal constraints. The question - do you as president believe you have the legal authority to execute US citizens on US soil on the grounds of suspicions of Terrorism if you choose to do so? - was one that Obama, like Brennan, simply did not answer.

As always, it’s really worth pausing to remind ourselves of how truly radical and just plainly unbelievable this all is. What’s more extraordinary: that the US Senate is repeatedly asking the Obama White House whether the president has the power to secretly order US citizens on US soil executed without charges or due process, or whether the president and his administration refuse to answer? That this is the “controversy” surrounding the confirmation of the CIA director - and it’s a very muted controversy at that - shows just how extreme the degradation of US political culture is.

As a result of all of this, GOP Senator Rand Paul on Thursday sent a letter to Brennan vowing to filibuster his confirmation unless and until the White House answers this question. Noting the numerous times this question was previously posed to Brennan and Obama without getting an answer, Paul again wrote:

“Do you believe that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a US citizen on US soil, and without trial?”

After adding that “I believe the only acceptable answer to this is no”, Paul wrote: “Until you directly and clearly answer, I plan to use every procedural option at my disposal to delay your confirmation and bring added scrutiny to this issue.”

(via brianlionzion)

mehreenkasana:

Boom.

(Source: the-left-is-right, via rjinswand)

theangrymuslimah:

Obama Bombs Yemen Hours After Winning Reelection

Not even a full day had passed before newly reelected President Obama ordered another drone strike in Yemen. Huffington Post:

On Wednesday morning, as many Americans sifted through the voter data and exit poll numbers of President Barack Obama’s reelection the night before, the Twitter feeds of close watchers of Yemen lit up with reports of another sort of presidential event: an apparent U.S. drone strike had killed several individuals in that country.

There was no way of being certain if the strike was indeed American, or for that matter if it was a drone strike at all, although it had all the markings of one.

“All signs (after dark, suspicions of locals, target) point to Sanhan strike being a US drone,” Yemen-based freelance journalist Adam Baron wrote on Twitter.

Several other analysts concurred.

A White House spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. If it were a American strike, of course, it would have to have been authorized by Obama.

The drone war violates both domestic and international law, and the Obama administration’s vehement disdain for transparency in government is the only thing keeping it from public and legal scrutiny. Beyond the law, it’s terrorism.

(Source: jayaprada, via topmetesla)

theonion:

Full Story.

(via quisevadet)

theinebriatedfangirl:

notsodarling-:

ilovecharts:

If The World Picked U.S. President, Election Would Be A Blowout

via Brian Confrey

I think we need to have a talk, Pakistan.

Okay, no.

Liberals, STOP. 

You DO KNOW why Pakistan hates Obama, right? Its not just because they’re “weird” or because they’re “misinformed”. Its because Obama is responsible for the death of Pakistani civilians and his drone program, which was dramatically increased, during his term, has terrorized an entire region and enraged a nation, a nation who is our ally. 

Pakistanis have every bloody reason in the world to loathe our president, right now. Obama has shifted the burden of war away from American soldiers and onto Pakistani civilians, and we liberals seem to not give a shit, because it means fewer American deaths, because from our perspective, it feels like the war is winding down, when really, the war has just shifted. We’ve gone from Vietnam to Cambodia, okay? This is not an improvement. This is not the way to end the war. 

If I hear one more American liberal defend Obama’s foreign policy, I will scream.

I understand the rationale for voting for him, and I understand that Romney will be, if anything, worse for the Pakistanis than Obama. Obama has at least tried to maintain the appearance of legality to the program, a step I very much doubt a Republican would have taken.

But if your best defense of Obama is that “the other guy is worse”? 

….. That’s not something we should be proud of having to say. 

(via topmetesla)

arresteddecision2012:

Lindsay: Look, I screwed up, okay? I’m lost and I hate them. I hate the Wetlands. They’re stupid and wet and there are bugs everywhere and I think I maced a crane, Michael!

Charity Drive - 1x05

(via riddlemethatass)

incitatus-ebooks:

sharkinthedungeon:

it’s like i broke up with obama and he’s not taking it well

oh no

(Source: tockthewatchdog, via rjinswand)

abaldwin360:

inothernews:

“Hi. I’m Matt Drudge. I’m not a racist, I swear! I just like to not-so-subtly perpetuate racial stereotypes. Also, can you believe all these freeloading minorities voting for Obama?  Typical.  Not that I’m trying to portray that with my cleverly-juxtaposed framegrab and headline.  Again, I’m not a racist!  Promise.  Kthxbai!”

This “Obama Phone” things has been all over the internet today.

Just to clear things up a bit, this program was originally started under Reagan for land-line phones as telephone service is considered a basic necessity.

The program for cell phones started in Tennessee in August of 2008 and in Florida in September of 2008 (before Obama was elected).

Here’s the snopes page on the subject.

(via paxamericana)

socialuprooting:

A vitally important and thoroughly documented new report on the impact of Obama’s drone campaign has just been released by researchers at NYU School of Law and Stanford University Law School. Entitled “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan”, the report details the terrorizing effects of Obama’s drone assaults as well as the numerous, highly misleading public statements from administration officials about that campaign. The study’s purpose was to conduct an “independent investigations into whether, and to what extent, drone strikes in Pakistan conformed to international law and caused harm and/or injury to civilians”.

The report is “based on over 130 detailed interviews with victims and witnesses of drone activity, their family members, current and former Pakistani government officials, representatives from five major Pakistani political parties, subject matter experts, lawyers, medical professionals, development and humanitarian workers, members of civil society, academics, and journalists.” Witnesses “provided first-hand accounts of drone strikes, and provided testimony about a range of issues, including the missile strikes themselves, the strike sites, the victims’ bodies, or a family member or members killed or injured in the strike”.

Here is the powerful first three paragraphs of the report, summarizing its main findings:

Whilte noting that it is difficult to obtain precise information on the number of civilian deaths “because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability”, the report nonetheless concludes: “while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians.”

But beyond body counts, there’s the fact that “US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury”:

In other words, the people in the areas targeted by Obama’s drone campaign are being systematically terrorized. There’s just no other word for it. It is a campaign of terror - highly effective terror - regardless of what noble progressive sentiments one wishes to believe reside in the heart of the leader ordering it. And that’s precisely why the report, to its great credit, uses that term to describe the Obama policy: the drone campaign “terrorizes men, women, and children”.

(Source: paxamericana, via quisevadet)