Skip to main content

View Diary: Droning Americans on US Soil: Why Holder's "No" is Not Reassuring (156 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I would hope so. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We don't really know a thing about it, so how can we feel confident that it's happening in a solid and relatively independent way?

    Review after the fact is still important to me, by the by, because if we do make decisions there poorly, we need that to be in some record and be carefully considered, even if that can't be public anytime soon.

    But the larger point is that we don't really have much to go on to feel confident that these decisions are being made with care, that there is a clear process of some kind that defines at least some bounds of when or where these are used.

    The internal review process used by the Sheriff etc isn't perfect, either, but at least there is one, and we know that it exists.

    •  Pursuing those questions is fine (0+ / 0-)

      I am confident that there is review ahead of time -- as has been asserted.

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:36:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fair enough (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Seneca Doane

        Fundamentally, how would we know? We don't even know much about the lines of authority involved.

        It's not an easy problem, for multiple reasons. But it's one that I find really important to address on some level.

        This administration won't be in charge indefinitely, and there's precedent involved here. If "yep, we review it, we swear" were coming out of, say, a Romney admin, would an assertion be enough for that confidence? Reviewed by whom?

        It's very much less that I don't trust those currently deciding things -- I don't actually have a strong opinion one way or the other -- than that a system has to be solid enough to be able to draw those lines no matter who is in charge. They may step over them anyway, but at least then it's clearly not just fine.

        But thank you for reasonable discussion around it.

    •  Read about the Ruby Ridge siege (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      A Senate Judiciary Committee held a 14 day hearing following Ruby Ridge.  Results?  In part

      The Subcommittee is […] concerned that, as Marshals investigating the Weaver case learned facts that contradicted information they previously had been provided, they did not adequately integrate their updated knowledge into their overall assessment of who Randy Weaver was or what threat he might pose. If the Marshals made any attempt to assess the credibility of the various people who gave them information about Weaver, they never recorded their assessments. Thus, rather than maintaining the Threat Source Profile as a living document, the Marshals added new reports to an ever-expanding file, and their overall assessment never really changed. These problems rendered it difficult for other law enforcement officials to assess the Weaver case accurately without the benefit of first-hand briefings from persons who had continuing involvement with him.
      Once Randy Weaver was identified as a threat, the Feds ignored contradictory information to build a case that he was a dangerous threat.  The CIA let itself be used to justify the Iraq war.  Does anyone think the CIA would be better at threat assessment than the FBI?

      Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

      by Helpless on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 05:37:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site