Skip to main content

View Diary: New York Times sues for access to Obama administration's legal guidance on drone use (134 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How does that compare with the... (21+ / 0-)

    ....differentially applied criticism of the Cheney-Bush administration regarding state secrets and legal guidances and of the Obama administration in such matters? There was a time when the site seemed united around the concept of transparency and cheered when Barack Obama said we would have it. We don't, but this business-as-usual seems to make no never-mind to some.

    As for targeted killings, since we do not know what the legal guidance for the attacks is, it is impossible to judge whether they comply with international law, something that some of us do not regard as quaint. As long as the administration withholds this information and as long as it withholds the number of civilians being killed so some idea of  "proportionality" can be determined, some of us will remain "hung up" on the matter.

    The surest way to predict the future is to invent it. — Stephen Post. [Me at Twitter.]

    by Meteor Blades on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 12:06:53 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  It's ridiculous (7+ / 0-)

      Yamamoto was an enemy commander in a legally and correctly declared time of war with the opposing nation, completely different than what we're talking here.

      It would be like saying we would have been wrong to precision bomb a train known to be carrying Hitler in WWII. Alternatively, if some Japanese or German conspiracy to kill FDR had been executed, that wouldn't have been a war crime either.

      All of this is completely different than killing US citizens (or foreigners) in a non-declared 'war' with sketchy at best legal guidance about it.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 10:07:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We can make our own judgement (5+ / 0-)

      Whatever rationalization the Office of Legal Counsel has come up with, we can come to our own conclusions based upon the Constitution, existing law and treaties, and what we know of the attacks.

      The utility of making the "legal" justifications public is that of accountability for all the lying. Also, it's secret law, something no free society should tolerate.

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 10:15:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  but "your own conclusions" aren't worth anything (0+ / 0-)

        at the endof the day.  The SCOTUS's conclusions are what matter.  Is the only purpose of releasing the alleged memo in question is that everybody can play armchair SCOTUS Justice and come to "their own conclusions"?

        •  By that measure, (0+ / 0-)

          the truth isn't worth anything. Who cares about objective reality? Might makes right.

          I wholly reject that perspective. I think, therefore I am.

          Do you accept everything a "final authority" does, simply because it's unlikely anyone can change it? Sounds like a 1774 royalist's outlook on life.

          Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

          by Simplify on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 11:46:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site