Can a President Use Drones Against Journalists?

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Last week, New Yorker writer Amy Davidson was moderating a live chat on drone warfare when she asked two expert participants this question: "Doesn't a journalist working abroad who is about to release classified information about a war crime -- thus committing a crime -- that will provoke retribution or a break with allies -- endangering Americans -- fit this definition of a target?" Author Michael Walzer said no. Professor Jeff McMahan said maybe: "If the release of classified information really would seriously endanger the lives of innocent people and the only way to prevent the release of the information was to kill the journalist, then the journalist would be liable to attack. But the evidential standards in such a case would be very high and would be unlikely to be satisfiable in practice."

Posted by mysterytoy at 08:31 AM | 65 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Front Page
Breaking News
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

Read the Retort using RSS.

RSS Feed

Author Info

mysterytoy

Joined 2009/05/15
Visited 2013/05/23

Status: user

MORE STORIES

How to make your own AK-47 (4 comments) ...

Is Obama a lame duck already? (14 comments) ...

Obama learned about IRS scandal while watching news (22 comments) ...

Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income (2 comments) ...

Obama admin knew IRS was harassing tea party since JUNE (29 comments) ...

McMahan followed up with Davidson:

First, the claim that it could in principle be permissible to kill a journalist if that were the only way to prevent him or her from releasing information that would result in the deaths of innocent people was a claim about what's in principle possible but I think it has almost no practical relevance. Such cases are so unlikely to arise that they're hardly worth taking seriously. Journalists are seldom in possession of information that, if published, will result in innocent people being killed. And even if a journalist were to have such information and be tempted to release it, there would almost certainly be other ways than killing of preventing the release.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

Well, if Drones are good enough for Afghans, then are good enough for you.

Sincerely
Virginia governor and "constitutional conservative", Bob McDonnell (aka they guy the right will go ga-ga over come next election).

Bob McDonnell calls drones ‘great', May 2012
Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell told WTOP Radio on Tuesday, when he praised drone technology as "great" and urged its use domestically for the same reasons it is deployed overseas.
"I think we ought to be using technology to make law enforcement more productive; it cuts down on manpower in the air -- and more safe," he said. "That's why we use it on the battlefield."

#1 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2013-02-22 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

#8 | POSTED BY DIABLO

FF
Using drones on drones.

#2 | Posted by Whizzo at 2013-02-22 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

DRAT....

where is Helen Thomas when you need a good drone dummy target..

#3 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-02-22 09:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Using drones as a weapon during an active war is a coin toss. On one side you have the cloak of invisibility from the state run media outlets hiding any collateral damage - on the other side, if you use an air strike to accomplish the same task, then you're faced with weeks of drilling from only your political adversaries.

In my opinion, during an active war only and as a last resort, the President has full authority to eliminate any hostile target here or abroad by whatever means possible. Personally I would prefer the old fashioned way - an air strike such as from an AC-130 - for the "Don't mess with Texas" approach of advertising. But, likewise, the use of a silent drone strike instills the same terroristic threat back on those whom wish to destroy us.

I'm also not sure if folks like Jane Fonda would or would not have been targeted during her personal desecration of the USA - Likewise I'm not sure if John Kerry would or would not have been targeted for is envelopment with Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

#4 | Posted by SamSpade at 2013-02-23 09:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Jane Fonda would or would not have been targeted
John Kerry would or would not have been targeted
#15 SAMSPADE

That's the problem- The limits of drone use are lines drawn in the sand.
They can be changed with every tide, every administration, or crisis.

#5 | Posted by Whizzo at 2013-02-23 10:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Somehow these domestic drones will be President George W. Bush's fault.

#6 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2013-02-23 10:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Obama likes this idea a lot and will start by taking out radio and tv stations that ask him hard questions.

#7 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-02-23 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Personally I would prefer the old fashioned way - an air strike such as from an AC-130 - for the "Don't mess with Texas" approach of advertising."

I'm not sure the crews of the C-130's would prefer that. The C-130 is a formidable weapon but is not stealthy and is vulnerable. There were losses to ground fire in Vietnam with over fifty men killed.

"But, likewise, the use of a silent drone strike instills the same terroristic threat back on those whom wish to destroy us."

All's fair in love and war. Sherman said it first, "War is hell."

#8 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-23 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Obama likes this idea a lot and will start by taking out radio and tv stations that ask him hard questions."

It has already started...I waited and waited to see some photos of him with Tiger on the golf course but he wouln't allow it. Damn the bad luck! I guess I'll just have to wait until he appears for "eye candy" on The View again.

#9 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-23 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's the problem- The limits of drone use are lines drawn in the sand.
They can be changed with every tide, every administration, or crisis.

#16 | Posted by Whizzo

That sand is on a beach at low tide. You have hit on the problem, The president does NOT have that power acording to our consitution.

#10 | Posted by Sniper at 2013-02-23 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The president does NOT have that power acording to our consitution."

Once we are deemed to be at war, the president should allow the commanders on-scene to make the military decisions. I had first hand experience with the LBJ-McNamara team trying to run a war from the White House and Pentagon. It is ineffective and causes our troops to suffer many, many needless casualties.

#11 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-23 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

The president does NOT have that power acording[sic] to our consitution[sic].

Sounds good when you say it fast but the President's war powers are not specifically limited by the text of the Constitution. Facially, they are quite broad. The better question is what are the President's statutory powers with regard to war.

#12 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-23 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

#23 | Posted by et_al

I guess it depends on how broadly we define "act of war". Citizens engaged in acts of treason are still afforded the judicial process.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-02-23 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

-Citizens engaged in acts of treason are still afforded the judicial process.

That's why they had all those Confederate trials on the battlefields prior to the fighting, one supposes.

The Executive is operating under the 2001 AUMF passed by Congress.And "due process" under military regs is not what some people seem to think it might be.

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-23 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Cork,

Would you be comfortable with Mitt Romney killing US Citizens with drone strikes under the criterial laid out in the "white papers"?

Do you trust any Republican with that kind of power?

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-02-23 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Executive is operating under the 2001 AUMF passed by Congress."

There's no obligation for "the executive" to do anything just because Congress passed on their obligation to declare a state of war. A sane executive, especially a "constitutional professor" would describe the AUMF as unconstitutional.

#16 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-23 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

You used several terms that are subject to varying definitions none of which purport to limit Presidential war power expressed in the Constitution.

(Note, I oppose the perpetual war against anyone, anywhere for any reason. The post was to point out the error it addressed.)

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-23 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

And "due process" under military regs is not what some people seem to think it might be.

You're so close to actually seeing the problem.

If an executive can label citizens "enemy combatants" using secret evidence and criteria to place them under military-style due process, are they much better than a dictator?

Do you trust any Republican with that kind of power?

Of course he wouldn't. Wait until the next one gets elected and you'll see.

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2013-02-23 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, Nulli. he should send 1-800-Flowers to al Qaeda instead.

-the criteria(l) laid out in the "white papers"?

That was a memo. As we speak, Congress and the Executive are working on these rules and more transparency.

-Do you trust any Republican with that kind of power?

www.drudge.com

#'s 21, 27, 28, 29

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-23 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you trust any Republican with that kind of power?

Of course he wouldn't. Wait until the next one gets elected and you'll see.

#29 | Posted by jpw

Bingo!

#20 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-23 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

#25 | Posted by Corky

There you go again with the AUMF. The one that says:

[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons...

Doesn't seem to authorize perpetual war against anyone, any where for any reason.

#21 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-23 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

#32 Yeah, it pretty much does.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-23 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan has released its annual report on the protection of civilians in the conflict in Afghanistan.

"You can argue over which of these counting systems to believe. But the takeaway is obvious:

Drones kill a lower ratio of civilians to combatants than we've seen in any recent war.

Granted, many civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other such wars were killed by our enemies rather than by us. But that's part of the equation.

One reason to prefer drones is that when you send troops, fighting breaks out, and the longer the fighting goes on, the more innocent people die.
Drones are like laparoscopic surgery: They minimize the entry wound and the risk of infection."

www.lawfareblog.com

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-23 01:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Drones are an effective combat tool.

I draw the line when US citizens are involved. I don't care which party controls the White House, executing US citizens without due process is unconstitutional and the practice should be railed against.

I am limiting my criticism to targeting US citizens, specifically.

The problem I have with Obama's use of drones is that he seems to have gotten away from capturing enemy combatants and attempting to glean information from them.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-02-23 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#23 | Posted by et_al

The Constitution doesn't define what the government CAN'T do. It does say what the government must do. Everything NOT defined in the Constitution is left to the states and the people. Seems to me that is stated in there somewhere.

#25 | Posted by Sniper at 2013-02-23 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Drones are an effective combat tool. "

Drones are imperialism on the cheap. The imperial dream is push-button killing, without the expense of invasions and standing armies and naval fleets, etc.

#26 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-23 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

- capturing enemy combatants and attempting to glean information from them.

Part of the requirements for targeting are they they are not able to be captured in a reasonable way, as in Yemin.

And turncoats have been executed on the battlefield since the country began. That particular terrorist didn't expect any different treatment.

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-23 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah so, see? Now taking out al Qaeda terrorist leaders is, "imperialism".

Here we thought it was fighting the perps of 911.

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-23 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Constitution...
#36 | Posted by Sniper

Doesn't include the USAF, submarine fleet, interstate highway system, national power grid, Internet, air traffic controllers, or a single word about telephonic communication.

As originally written, it kept women from voting, denied citizenship to Native Americans, and counted slaves as 3/5 of a person.

C'mon, kiddo, get up to speed. It's no longer 1789 - and hasn't been for over 200 years.

#29 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-23 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

#30 | Posted by Corky
That was a memo.

The one labeled Department of Justice White Paper? The one that is unsigned and leaked by Mr. Anonymous from the Office of Undisclosed Agency? That one? Or the ones written by the OLC that have not been released to Congress or the public?

#30 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-23 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

"As we speak, Congress and the Executive are working on these rules and more transparency."

Full quotes are always better. They give context, don't you think?

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-23 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

That does seem to be the way of it, Nulli.

#33 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-23 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Still having trouble following the conversation? Or just playing the game because don't actually have any retort.

-There are morons on this thread! As long as I don't name them specifically

Specifically what post on this thread are you referring to that does that?

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-23 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

#36 | Posted by Sniper

You really should work on your knowledge of the Constitution. It delegates war powers to the federal government. Thus excluding the states from that power. Congress declares war. The President as CiC executes war. The question is whether execution of war power authorizes droning citizens (putting aside that the Constitution does no limit individual rights to "citizens"). The Constitution does not address or limit war power in that context.

#35 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-23 01:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

#46 The execution of the war is carried out under military regulations is it not? So turncoats have the "due Process" provided by military regulations.

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-23 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

#36 | Posted by Sniper

You really should work on your knowledge of the Constitution.
#46 | Posted by et_al

From your lips to God's ears. But I have a feeling God decided she's really no longer interested in the progress, or lack of same, in Sniper's civics database.

#37 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-23 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

#46 | Posted by et_al

The problem is that our government no longer delares war. Yet we still had Korea, 'Nam, GW1, Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention numerous other smaller clandestine "activities" to protect various interests; such as an excursion into Latin America to protect the interests of a company known as United Fruit (I added that one for Null's benefit).

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-02-23 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

#49 Congress "declared war" on al Qaeda so to speak, in the 2001 AUMF.

And the turncoat terrorist had his "due process" under military regs covering that action.

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-23 02:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Turnoat?

So, the "battlefield" is anything that the Feds want it to be?

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-02-23 02:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

They give context...

None needed to correct your error.

As we speak, Congress and the Executive are working on these rules and more transparency.

Both should have thought of that before droning a US citizen. Or expanding the perpetual war on anyone, anywhere for any reason into Yemen and Somalia (what did those nations have to do with 9/11) and who knows where else.

#41 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-23 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

In stateless warfare, the "battlefield" is as described in the Congressional UAMF.

What were we supposed to do? Wait until he sent us yet another bomber and then ask him again nicely to come to court when he had said that US law does not apply to him?

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-23 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of course had he sent us another bomber while we dithered over his status and hat one was effective, some of these same posters might well be castigating the Pres for not acting to deter the threat when he had a chance.

Might they?

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-23 02:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

that one

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-23 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"As originally written, it kept women from voting, denied citizenship to Native Americans, and counted slaves as 3/5 of a person."

Wellll, not quite, Doc. I'm surprised you're not up on the particlars of those nasty Southerners (and Northerners too.)

"The compromise that settled the issue of how to count slaves for purposes of representation in the House came to be known as the Three-fifths Compromise. It is sometimes wrongly said that the compromise meant the founders considered slaves as only partial human beings. In fact, the compromise had nothing to do with the human worth of the individual slave."

www.pbs.org

#45 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-23 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

The execution of the war is carried out under military regulations is it not?

More or less, yes. The military is also subject to the law of armed conflict. Mostly what the "white paper" addressed.

"Turncoat" is imprecise terminology. A specific example of a "turncoat" was examined in Ex Parte Quirin which determined that citizens do not forfeit constitutional rights by taking up arms against the US. Quirin was captured with a group of German soldiers (don't remember he may have been one) in WWII sneaking into the US.

#46 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-23 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem is that our government no longer delares[sic] war.

Another terminology deficiency. The Constitution does not provide a specific form or methodology for "declaring war." It is easily argued that if Congress approves the use of war powers through its funding power that is the equivalent of a declaration. The AUMF is the example de jour. The question then become the scope of the authorization. Thus, the current national debate about the perpetual war against anyone, anywhere for any reason conducted on the basis of the AUMF.

#47 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-23 02:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"And the turncoat terrorist had his "due process" under military regs covering that action."

Any American operating with an enemy unit with the goal of killing Americans is an enemy combatant PERIOD! Anybody here familiar with the "Phantom Blooker" in the Vietnam War? It's fiction, but subject is the same...."turncoat" Americans.

#48 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-23 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

#56 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Yes. Although your snippet inadequately describes how the 3/5-thing came to be. House representation was (and still is) census-based. The 3/5-thing sounds horribly racist, but it was included to reduce the represenation of the slave-holding states by reducing their counted-citizens (slaves count as 3/5 thus fewer people overall) and thus reducing their proportional representation in our new congress.

Nowadays progressives love to bag on the Constitution at a cherry-picked level (it DOES represent an obstacle to their dream of a top-down Utopian society afterall). What Doc chose NOT to inlcude was the ammendments that nullified attrocities such as slavery. The document is brilliant because it has a mechanism for change.

I do applaud the recent honesty in progressives as they now openly display their contempt for this document's limitations on centralized power. They used to just pretend that the 'Welfare clause' granted congress limitless spending powers. However, a casual-read of Article, Section 8 turns that silly argument upside-down. So the contempt comes out, and the honesty is refreshing.

The only notable, recent deviation of contempt for the document came with progressives (which includes the MSM in almost entirety) urging Obama to invoke the 14th Ammendment to unilaterally increase the debt-ceiling. They point specifically to Section 4. Of course, section 5 vests it to congress. But much of the media has become Obama-Pravda, so inconveniences such as textual-accuracy can be brushed aside in the pursuit of the greater-good.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-02-23 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

#51 | Posted by JeffJ
So, the "battlefield" is anything that the Feds want it to be?

Good question, what is a battlefield?

It has changed over time. War and the Vanishing Battlefield Abstract:

This article examines the role of the battlefield as a regulatory concept in the laws of war. It argues that the idea of the battlefield continues to haunt our concept of what war entails, and that the deconstruction of the battlefield thus heralds a decay of the laws of war as a normative system designed to regulate armed conflict. That development predates spectacular post 9/11 redefinitions of the battlefield, although the latter are threatening to engulf the last remains of what made war a social activity distinct from the reign of arbitrary violence.

What about "cyberwar?" Stuxnet as Cyberwarfare: Applying the Law of War to the Virtual Battlefield How about the up and coming use of "autonomous weapons", i.e. those that choose and terminate targets without human intervention?

#50 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-23 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Good question, what is a battlefield?"

Apparently it's whatever the Constitutional Law Professor-in-Chief deems it to be.

#51 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-23 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#59 | Posted by jestgettinalong
Any American operating with an enemy unit with the goal of killing Americans is an enemy combatant PERIOD!

Okay, assuming your simplistic declarative statement is true. What does that mean in practical terms? Quirin did not forfeit his constitutional rights by being an "enemy combatant" (btw that case is where the term basically originates) neither did Hamdan. Who, how and when is that determination made according to what law? Once made, what is the effect?

#52 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-23 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

There's An Even Worse Scandal Hidden In Obama's Secret Drone Memo

The Obama administration's classified legal memos justifying targeted killings contain potentially shady protocols with foreign governments and "case-specific" details of strikes, two sources aware of their contents told Krisitn Roberts and Michael Hirsch of the National Journal.

#53 | Posted by SamSpade at 2013-02-23 05:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Any American operating with an enemy unit with the goal of killing Americans is an enemy combatant PERIOD!"

That's why this thing is such a non-issue.

"Quirin did not forfeit his constitutional rights by being an "enemy combatant" (btw that case is where the term basically originates) neither did Hamdan."

The constitution doesn't afford enemy combatants specific rights. Those are spelled out in the Geneva Conventions.

#54 | Posted by madbomber at 2013-02-23 06:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

The constitution doesn't afford enemy combatants specific rights.

True, the Constitution is very unspecific on matters of war.

Those are spelled out in the Geneva Conventions.

There and the decisions of the USSC that say citizens designated "enemy combatants" have the right to habeas corpus and due process in accord with the Constitution.

[Correction; Hamdan above should be Hamdi.]

#55 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-23 10:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

If a kill list includes citizens then it WILL include the king's opponents. If you don't believe that try reading kings and chronicles. It's already happened in soft ways to Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, ...

#56 | Posted by reitze at 2013-02-23 11:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

.... "But the evidential standards in such a case would be very high and would be unlikely to be satisfiable in practice."

**** TOTAL B.S. because there is NO Democratic "Evidential Standards" involved! The Justifiable Standards for Assassinations are now solely left up to the Totalitarian President and his Fascist Cronies! In the future anyone who gets in their way such as people who investigate or protest US Govt Crimes (i.e. Illegal Wars,911 Truth,Bankster Bailouts,Pentagon's Missing Trillions etc) can and will be classified as Terrorists or involved in Terrorism and then with no Trial or Appeal they'll be summarily Assassinated!
If the Obama/Wall St. Regime had No Crimes to HIDE there wouldn't be any need for this Tyrannical Legislation!

#57 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2013-02-24 12:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

If it's Obama, yes he can. If it's a Republican president, it would be an impeachable offense.

#58 | Posted by uglyblinddate at 2013-02-24 12:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

#46 | Posted by et_al

I guess you can twist the words to mean just about anything you want. We don't have a declared war. An accused citizen still has the right to a trial.

#59 | Posted by Sniper at 2013-02-24 10:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

C'mon, kiddo, get up to speed. It's no longer 1789 - and hasn't been for over 200 years.

#40 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Is that a fact? I guess you are one of thoes (bleep-bleep) that think we need to rewrite the constution so it can be modern. If YOU don't like parts of it, there is a process in place to change it. Feel free to start an amendment.

#60 | Posted by Sniper at 2013-02-24 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

We don't have a declared war. An accused citizen still has the right to a trial.

#70 | Posted by Sniper

Does that include uncharged suspects fleeing a crime or hiding in a cabin?

These guys always had the opportunity to turn themselves in at a friendly embassy at any time.

And yes, I said that back when Bush was doing it and would be saying the same if Etchy had won and was doing it.

#61 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-02-24 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

If journalists are targetted, FOX staff are still safe.

#62 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-02-24 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

#70 | Posted by Sniper
I guess you can twist the words to mean just about anything you want.

Help me out. What did I twist?

We don't have a declared war.

Depends on who you ask what the AUMF means, the Bush and Obama administrations think we do and so do many authoritarians on this site. That aside, please cite the article and section of the Constitution that prescribes the form, format and content of a "declaration of war."

An accused citizen still has the right to a trial.

What of the citizen "enemy combatant" (that's a legal term) who has taken up arms against the US military? Another question, in what State and district is the trial to be held if that enemy combatant commits the offense in Afghanistan, for example?

#63 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-24 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I support POTUS Obama using drones against journalists of the following employers:

1. Washington Post
2. The New York Times
3. The Los Angeles Times
4. Also, any journalist graduating from an Ivy League school.

#64 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-24 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Corporat america used to have to be subtle to influence the news back when Noam Chomsky co-authored manufacturing consent.

At this point, the consent manufacture itself.

The so-called "Fourth Estate" is a joke.

#65 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2013-02-24 11:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

he should send 1-800-Flowers to al Qaeda instead.

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-23 01:09 PM

Anyone who questions the great Obama must be a terrorist sympathizer.

#66 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2013-02-25 02:54 AM | Reply | Flag: