Blog Roll
Who's My Legislator?

Virginia Blogs
All Things Education
Augusta Free Press
Crew of 42
Dixie Pig
Greater Greater Washington
Loudoun Progress
Ox Road South Blog
Pilot on Politics" blog
Power for the People
Richmond Sunlight
RVA Politics
Shad Plank
Vivian Paige

Find more about Weather in Arlington, VA
Click for weather forecast

Advanced Search

Wondering about Obama and the Drones

by: AndySchmooklerforCongress

Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 13:29:24 PM EST

( - promoted by lowkell)

What does it mean that President Obama has not sought to institute prior judicial review of targeted killing by drones?

I'm not reflexively opposed to the use of drones for targeted killing, so long as three essential criteria are met.  

One of these criteria*  [See note below for the other two] is Review and approval by an independent judicial authority: It should not be possible for the executive branch to take such actions on its own; as with arrest or search warrants, the prior review by an independent judicial body of any such actions - to make sure that the above criteria are adequately met - should be a prerequisite, to close the door to the most serious of abuses of power.

Review and approach by an independent judicial authority is clearly in the spirit of what the Constitution is about.  It accords with the Constitution's general approach of "checks and balances."  And it is in alignment with the specific requirement for warrants for search or arrest. If the executive needs a warrant to invade the privacy of someone, or to detain that person, how much more essential should it be to get such permission to kill someone (in a situation in which arrest and a fair trial are impossibilities)!

So why doesn't our president, a constitutional lawyer, work to establish such a legal framework for now and for the future?

AndySchmooklerforCongress :: Wondering about Obama and the Drones

Even if he --or we-- feels confident that he will not abuse this drone program, that is not and never has been the point about the vital constitutional checks and balances. The whole system is set up in an attempt to assure that UNtrustworthy can't abuse powers in a foreseeable future.

It might be argued that there are times when important national security interests of the United States require immediate action, and do not allow for the delays of going before a judge or panel of judges to get approval.

Such problems of urgency have been dealt with before-- with the FISA court, for example. With FISA, there's a provision for having the action first and the approval second, when delay would be too costly. But the principle remains: certain actions by the executive must be independently reviewed, to assure that they indeed meet the established and codified legal criteria, and are not being undertaken for self-serving or other illegitimate reasons.

So again, I'm left wondering what it means that the memos disclosed last week call for no one to enter into the decision or review process who does not work for the president.

It is sometimes said, as if it were a matter of course, that presidents always seek to hold onto powers and never to limit them. That should not be taken by us citizens as any justification. We should insist that our leaders put the well-being of the nation ahead of their own enjoyment of powers.

And besides, if there are good national-security reasons --meeting all the necessary criteria-- for the targeted killings, the court established to review such decisions would not be an obstacle to the desired actions. (In the case of the FISA court, only a relative handful of requests were denied, out of thousands applied for.)

So what does it mean that the president has not worked to establish what would seem clearly to be the proper legal framework for such a program?

The other two criteria that would need to be met are:

    1) An agreed upon level and kind of threat:  There needs to be a codified, articulated set of criteria regarding who would constitute the kind of threat necessary to make a person a legitimate target.  I won't venture what they should be, but I think it should involve something tantamount to making war against the United States.  No one, I would say, should be able to make war on the U.S. with impunity.  
    2) The impossibility of legal process: All acceptable targets would have to be beyond the reach of the law. Anyone meeting the first criteria whom it is possible to arrest --by American or other legal authorities--would have to be arrested and tried, not targeted by drones.

Andy Schmookler, an award-winning author, political commentator, radio talk-show host, and teacher, was the Democratic nominee for Congress from Virginia's 6th District.  He is the author of various books including The Parable of the Tribes:  The Problem of Power in Social Evolution and Out of Weakness: Healing the Wounds that Drive Us to War.

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Open Ended Definition of Threat to American Personnel (0.00 / 0)
It's refreshing to finally see this issue addressed. My biggest issue with the current standards, aside from those you already mentioned, is the open ended definition of what constitutes a threat to American personnel in taking someone into custody. The way it stands now, the possibility that any American could be injured or killed in an arrest can warrant as assassination. Essentially the President is saying that American citizens who have committed only a thought crime should be given less due process than a convicted mass murder who has escaped from prison. American's who are believed to be aiding terrorists at least deserve the due process of a SWAT team raid on their house and being killed if they attempt to resist with deadly force.  

Constitutional Question (0.00 / 0)
Ernst Leonhardt was born to a German-born Swiss father on September 25, 1885 in Tracy City, Grundy County, Tennessee, United States of America, making him a native born U.S. citizen. At a young age he moved to Switzerland, where he later joined the Swiss Army and became involved in right wing politics.  In 1939, Leonhardt moved to Nazi Germany and became involved in producing Nazi propaganda. On March 26, 1945, Leonhardt was killed in an Allied air raid on  Oberndorf am Neckar in Germany.

Question: Were Leonhardt's civil rights violated by President Harry Truman?

When an American citizen chooses to associate with a group or a nation involved in an armed conflict with the United States and they are in the company of hostile forces on foreign territory, must the commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States get some kind of conviction in a court of law, or can the American citizen in question be treated the same as the enemy combatants he is standing next to?

If the commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States must get a judicial ruling before harming the American citizen in question, then shouldn't  the other enemy combatants be extended the same consideration under international law?

Should U.S. service men and women be required to take depositions from all enemy combatants before engaging them with deadly force? Where should the line be drawn?  

The Richmonder

Where you draw the line (0.00 / 0)
There's a big difference between the scenario you laid out and what the President's memo describes. If we are in a state of declared war with another country and a US citizen leaves the states to go fight for them, then certainly he can be killed without any kind of judicial oversight.

The scenario the memo is describing would go more like this:

Someone is angry at the corrupt relationship between mega-banks and the US government. They make Facebook postings and send emails calling the US Government corrupt and complicit in the financial crisis as well as allowing those responsible for it to remain un-prosecuted. As a recourse, they decide to plot to blow up a bank branch office and release an anti-government manifesto.

Under the President's memo, such a person, before they even so much as attempted to purchase explosives, could be targeted for assassination simply because they are the registered owner of a firearm and could potentially injure a law enforcement officer during their arrest. In that scenario, the proper course of action is to watch that person and have them arrested once they actually commit a crime. Simply have them killed is wrong on so many levels.

Now if the scenario involved someone who was clearly working with Al-Queda and actively plotting to blow up a building, then I would say the proper course, provided there is some sort of oversight, clearly defined parameters, and judicial review, would be to take that person into custody, hold them as an enemy combatant, and question them.

There is no scenario I can imagine where a US citizen on American soil should be assassinated for being a terrorist. If they resist while we attempt to take them into custody and get killed, that's perfectly acceptable. But to just have them killed completely removes any ability to obtain further intelligence on their activities and possible terrorist network.

[ Parent ]
Did you read the post? (4.00 / 1)
I think you missed this part:

"2) The impossibility of legal process: All acceptable targets would have to be beyond the reach of the law. Anyone meeting the first criteria whom it is possible to arrest --by American or other legal authorities--would have to be arrested and tried, not targeted by drones."

No one is talking about targeted killings on U.S. soil (except maybe you).

The Richmonder

[ Parent ]
A question about drones (0.00 / 0)
"What does it mean that President Obama has not sought to institute prior judicial review of targeted killing by drones?"

Is there something about drones that I'm missing?  Do drones kill you any deader than fighter bombers, cruise missiles, or helicopter gunships?  Drones use the Hellfire missile, exactly the same kind of missile used by U.S. helicopter gunships.  Does Obama need to seek "prior judicial review" for just drone killings?  Are cruise missiles okay? What about an A-10 using Maverick missiles?

What is it about a drone that it should require "prior judicial review" when we've been doing basically the same thing for decades with a wide variety of weapon systems?

The Richmonder

A drone is a conventional weapon, as are many others (0.00 / 0)
(including ones you've mentioned). I'm not sure why drones would be in a different category, particularly, regarding how much (and what type of), if any, authorization the president needs to use them.

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

[ Parent ]
Future Presidents (0.00 / 0)
From what I understand, the criteria in place for the use of drone attacks is quite rigorous and precise, No drones have ever been used to attack American citizens on our soil, nor do I contemplate they will be. However, the Senate Intelligence Committee wants a protocol that includes some sort of "court" - or other outside oversight - because of what might evolve in the future with future presidents.

I completely trust President Obama with the power to order drone attacks. I wouldn't feel that way about someone like, oh let's say Richard Nixon or Dick Cheney.

the question remains (0.00 / 0)
"I completely trust President Obama with the power to order drone attacks. I wouldn't feel that way about someone like, oh let's say Richard Nixon or Dick Cheney."

So the question remains:  what does it mean that President Obama hasn't seen to it that targeted killings must be given a green light by some sort of warrant process, issued by an independent judicial authority?

That wasn't just a rhetorical question, on my part. I'm genuinely wanting to know. Does he not care about the dangerous of unchecked executive powers over life and death? Does he not see the danger? Is there something else?

In last night's SOTU address, President Obama seemed to address something about our anti-terrorism policies, promising to make them more transparent (if I recall his language).  

I wonder if that gives some promise that this issue will be adequately addressed in the coming months.

[ Parent ]

Make a New Account



Forget your username or password?



Donate to Blue Virginia

The purpose of Blue Virginia is to cover Virginia politics from a progressive and Democratic perspective. This is a group blog and a community blog. We invite everyone to comment here, but please be aware that profanity, personal attacks, bigotry, insults, rudeness, frequent unsupported or off-point statements, "trolling" (NOTE: that includes outright lies, whether about climate science, or what other people said, or whatever), and "troll ratings abuse" (e.g., "troll" rating someone simply because you disagree with their argument) are not permitted and, if continued, will lead to banning. For more on trolling, see the Daily Kos FAQs. Also note that diaries may be deleted if they do not contain at least 2 solid paragraphs of original text; if not, please use the comments section of a relevant diary. For more on writing diaries, click here. Thanks, and enjoy!

P.S. You can contact us at and you can subscribe to Lowell's Twitter feed here. If you'd like to subscribe to Miles Grant's Twitter feed, click here. For Teacherken, click here. For Kindler, click here.

P.P.S. To see the Blue Virginia archive, please click here. To see the Raising Kaine archive, please click here. To see the Blue Commonwealth archive, please click here.

RSS Feed

Subscribe to Blue Virginia - Front Page

Powered by: SoapBlox