Bipartisan Resolution to Compel White House to Release Legal Justification for Drone Strikes

[G_j]

http://kucinich.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=312882

Kucinich, Paul and Holt Introduce Bipartisan Resolution to Compel White House to Release Legal Justification for Drone Strikes



Related Documents

Resolution of Inquiry


Washington, Nov 28 -

Congressmen Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Rush Holt Jr. (D-NJ) today introduced H. Res. 819, a resolution of inquiry to compel the Administration to release documents which it reportedly uses as the legal justification for the use of drones to assassinate people abroad, including United States citizens, without trial. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, our drone strikes have killed more than 3,000 people including as many as 1,105 innocent civilians since 2002.

“We must reject the notion that protecting our national security requires revoking the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. No President can act as judge, jury and executioner, and any attempt to do so is in direct violation of our Constitution which gives our citizens a right to life and a fair trial.

“According to a memorandum prepared by the White House Office of Legal Counsel, when the United States conducts such an attack it is legal. The Congress and the American people have a right to know this legal framework. Congress has an obligation as the sole authority under the Constitution to declare war to know how the use of force abroad is being used, especially against U.S. citizens,” said Kucinich.

Congressman Kucinich today introduced a Resolution of Inquiry, a resolution used to compel information from the White House, which, if passed, would require the White House to make the Office of Legal Counsel memo available to Congress.

“Our strikes are creating a legal precedent that the world will emulate. From Iran to China, other nations are very close to developing comparable technology. If Congress doesn’t act to ensure proper oversight and legal authority for the use of this technology, the consequences could be dire for the American people,” said Kucinich.

See a copy of the legislation here. Under the parliamentary procedure of a Resolution of Inquiry, the resolution must be sent to committee and considered under expedited rules.

[graham4anything]

1. I wish we had drones in the 1930s before Hitler killed his first person. Reason enough

If one could have had a bunker busting drone back then

Is there anyone that wouldn't have wanted before one person died, to have this headline appear in their papers

[img][/img]

I defy anyone to honestly say they wouldn't have applauded stopping all those people from dying

5.1–6.0 million Jews, including 3.0–3.5 million Polish Jews
1.8 –1.9 million non-Jewish Poles (includes all those killed in executions or those that died in prisons, labor, and concentration camps, as well as civilians killed in the 1939 invasion and the 1944 Warsaw Uprising)
500,000–1.2 million Serbs killed by Croat Nazis
200,000–800,000 Roma & Sinti
200,000–300,000 people with disabilities
80,000–200,000 Freemasons
100,000 communists
10,000–25,000 homosexual men
2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses

[SomethingFishy]

2. Your lack of knowledge of history and WWII is only overshadowed

by your lack of knowledge of what the OP is talking about.

As a Jew I resent the fact that you want to use the hardships my people suffered at the hands of the Nazi's to justify the use of Military Drones assassinating US citizens or flying over my house every day.

[graham4anything]

3. I am a Jew myself. I resent you wanting the Hitlers of the world to attack us like on 9-11

Of the 3000 people who died in my NYC- seems alot of collateral damage for terrorists right here. I for one wish Bush wasn't sleeping and he used a few back then.


If Ron Paul has his name on something, it is a fraud.

Kudos that old school got OBL, but new school can have my blessing to keep me and 100s of millions of others safe.

If Ron Paul and the others want to do something better- get legal and illegal guns off the street and ban the NRA. I am tired of my people here in this country(all 320 million people here are my people) suffering at the hands of WMD like a gun.

Ron Paul is a delusional paranoid charleton who has made tens of millions off the backs of the people he bamboozles. Again, anything he wants, I want the opposite.

And google Jorg Haider. Ron's son could easily be brothers with Mr. Haider. Or worse, clones.

[Are_grits_groceries]

7. You may be willing to live under a surveillance by drone state,

but I am not. In addition, I DO NOT like the idea of one man sifting through a notebook of people and choosing who to kill. This defies our ethics and international law. If W had done this, everyone on DU would be apoplectic.

In addition, I don't trust the info he is being given. The CIA has a history of doing what they want to improve their status no matter what it does for our country. The administration had to rush around and make guidelines on drones in case Romney won. They didn't want him or his advisers killing people willy nilly. Somebody needs to watch the watchers so that the President has a clue about their machinations.

I am not advocating letting terrorists run wild with their plans. However, people conveniently forget that if George Bush had ordered to be kept apprised of what bin Laden was up to and other reports, he and his minions would have had a clue. He was a known quantity who had a verifiable record of terrorist acts.

I have no idea why we are killing this or that person except that they seem to be 2nd in command Al Qaeda. We have killed eleventy billion of them so far. We could be killing certain people for a variety of reasons including taking out someone our Middle East allies have a problem with. As many have pointed out, our actions are probably creating more enemies by killing innocent people. We are on a slippery slope and heading down.

As far as Hitler goes, there is no guarantee that drones would have taken him out. He managed to escape some pretty good attempts on his life. In addition, the allies had a clue about the concentration camps. Whether this information was ignored or disbelieved, I don't know. I don't remember their liberation being a priority in our strategy.

And don't even start about WMD. We went there once and got Iraq in our lap. I don't doubt that they are being developed, but some of the nastiest ones don't need major lab space. Google ricin.

[sabrina 1]

19. As a Progressive Democrat I abhor the adaption of Bush policies which we fought so

hard against and I find it reprehensible, as someone above said, to equate the killing eg, of a 15 year old US Citizen to the killing of Hitler on a Democratic Site. I saw these arguments from Bush supporters, who had zero respect for human life, especially if that life was Arab or Muslim.

We are not killing Hitlers with these dreadful weapons which I know one day will be banned and the sooner the better.

We are killing innocent men, women and many, many beautiful, innocent children, just as Bush did in Iraq, and I cannot believe what has happened to this forum where during the Bush years, the immorality of these policies was never in doubt.

Using countries like Pakistan and Yemen as showcases for our latest WMDs is vile, horrible and criminal. But it has worked, the sale of drones is sky high.

We have lost our soul as a nation. I have such admiration though for those who have refused to do so.

[msanthrope]

31. I'd have been just fine with Bush drone striking Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora. You? nt

[graham4anything]

37. yup!

[msanthrope]

38. Cynthia McKinney spent her last weeks in Congress probing the CIA assassination of Tupac Shakur.

Okay, I tried to say that without laughing, but there you have it.

Dennis Kucinich is doing something about as worthwhile, because we all know that if he was really courageous--he'd introduce a resolution to end the Afghanistan War, specifically, a repeal of the AUMF of 9/18/2001, that he voted for.

[G_j]

46. fine, you will jump at any chance to attack Kucinich

and wow, even drag McKinney into it..LOL But, the drone issue is a very serious one.,

[msanthrope]

58. If the drone issue was so damn serious to Dennis, why did he wait for the Lame Duck session?

And why isn't he going for the whole enchilada, so to speak?

[redgreenandblue]

5. You got it backwards. Hitler would be the one using the drones.

Unchecked executive power is what enabled Hitler. The same could happen at some point down the road in the US.

You may (or may not) think Obama will use his unchecked executive power of life and death responsibly. Others that follow him might definitely not.

[graham4anything]

6. Unchecked power? He won an election acting like Ron or Rand Paul. By charisma

There was no theft. He came out of nowhere and won the voters votes much like W did.


and if you worry about future president, it's simple

DON'T ELECT A PRESIDENT WHO SHALL DO THAT.

IN WW2, someone who tried something against the country was considered a traitor and hung.
Americans died in American hangings who attempted overthowing the country

and there are kooky anarchists with no allegiance to this country, and mass murderers here.

Life is different now.

and this is a power attempt by the Republican house to take away Presidential powers
and they are using a few democratic reps. to make it seem like something other than it is
(much like the fake Rice issue to steal back the mass. Senate seat.)

In the constitution there is a thing called War Time Powers Act.
if its good enough for Lincoln, considered the #1 president of all time, it is good enough for me.

There no longer are borders. 9-11 proved how easy it was to penetrate America by people coming through a regular airline into this country.

I worry about things like that not some conspiracy theory that Ron Paul spews.
while he counts the ten million dollars he has in the bank
Ron Paul is the 1%. I thought we didn't like 1%ers.

[Are_grits_groceries]

9. Was there a war declared?

Did I miss something? Congress does have a say in that, but we have actions not wars. If no war is declared then don't bring me crap about the War Powers Act. That is unchecked executive power.

AND there are borders or do you consider the sovereignty of nations to be irrelevant. We had a stroke after 9/11 because our borders were crossed and terrorist acts carried out. People in the Southwest certainly believe in them as do the individual states. You either have borders that matter or you don't. People have crossed them forever to do no good. It just wasn't a huge event.

I can't even begin to address the point about electing presidents who act certain ways. You and I have no idea what will actually happen when someone takes the reins of power.

[graham4anything]

10. Didn't Ron Paul vote for Afghanastan?

Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, who said, and seeming he was considered almost a saint at the time of his death, his statement, whatever a President does is legal, must be true.

And of course Lincoln had dissenters to. But then Lincoln was a kind soul and did not exact undo revenge on the south, did he?
He gave them full amnesty and full citizenship.And they tried to coup'd'etat the USA.
The hard workers who come across these days are avoiding persecution in their country and just looking to work hard.(let's give them full amnesty and citizenship).

Quite the opposite of the Civil War days and 9-11.

And once you vote all the bad people out, probably 9 steps ahead, is the thought that then when the Peter Kings of the world are not in power, and we can have a worldwide peace,
then we all can get rid of all weapons (including guns) and we can all live in peace as one.
Until those pesky republican tea party libertarians have power, we have to remain vigiliant

(especially as someone on this thread mentioned the spy agenecies...for all we know, they just could be behind alot of the stuff in the first place.) Good for the president to keep the powers he has.

I bet Dennis in his home jumped for joy when OBL news came through. But who knows.
And I love Dennis but not Ron Paul.
(BTW-where was Ron Paul when Dennis had his impeachment of Bush bill?)

It took a long time to dirty up the world, I figure another 20 years needed to clean it up.
one step at a time.

[Are_grits_groceries]

15. There have been votes about funding for

troops in Afghanistan and other places, but there has not been a vote on a declaration of war.
As for presidential powers, the fact is that there has been a shift to make the executive branch more powerful.
Bush used signing statements to get past having to pass bills. Obama has too. They use every trick in the book to avoid oversight of any of their actions. It might seem just hunky dory with Obama in office. You don't seem to realize that the Republican presidents can use expanded executive powers too.

[graham4anything]

16. actually I think George Washington did too. It is in the constitution

and you do remember that Lincoln (OH MY GOD) was a republican don't you?

and he only is the #1 president of all time in everybody's lists.
Not everything he did was pretty either.

and that CONGRESS fully voted after 9-11 to give the president the power for the war on terrorism. (another inconvienet truth forgotten.)

Wish Obama didn't have to deal with the congress that the PEOPLE poll at 12% popularity.

And if you worry about a future bad president, again, vote for one that isn't in 2016 2020 and 2024 and 2028 and 2032.
To do that, one needs to vote for a candidate (like Hillary) who CAN WIN in the first place, not some one issue idealogue that might be a great person (like Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern) but who can't win, directly leading to a bad President like W, 41, IKE, Reagan,
who then would worry one.

It is amazing how history repeated when Democrats tossed LBJ Carter and Clinton into the river in 1968 1980 and 2000 being holier than thou. Over an issue that directly lead that issue to become 100 times worse by being holier than thou.

Gets me so annoyed because GMAFB, Bobby would have been alive without McCarthy upsurping LBJ to run and win in 1972 had LBJ been allowed to defeat Nixon in 1968 as he would have.

And without Nader and the jettising of Bill Clinton from public view in 2000 to run a "pure" campaign forgetting that Bill was so popular he would have won a 3rd term could he have run, again forgot history and all 3 of those races showed what happens

As Dr.Dyer so famously said, Don't sweat the small stuff, because it's all just small stuff.

and think of the long term prize.

Reagan, Bush, Bush, Bush won't get that.

Stop trying to toss Obama out by backing something a fraud like Ron Paul is wanting.
RON PAUL IS NOT ON OUR SIDE. There is a reason Ron Paul is not a democrat. 90% of our party doesn't even have a right to freedom in Ron Paul's eyes.

And remember, Ron Paul did NOT sign Kucinich's impeach W bill. He mumbled some stupid words like it wouldn't pass (earth to Ron- NOTHING you ever supported ever passed).
He is them. Just the court jester on their side is his role. If he ever really troubled the Bush people, they would have gave a million dollars in ads to some other canddiate to defeat him all those other elections. He is just a playa for them, deep on the bench so to say.


and btw-when thinking of the constitution, ahem, everybody claims to use Bobby Kennedy as a great example of what a Democrat should be.
I loved him too. I remember exactly where I was when I heard over my transister radio the announcement that he did.
But I also remember he famously wiretapped Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for many years.
OOOPS.
Not everything is tidy and pretty. And things do need to be remembered that it all has played before.

and 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
We already have gotten a good 10% or more of something from our great current President.

and the above is just trying to upsurp President Obama's constitutional powers, which he has not abused, an inconvienient truth some are trying to obscure or forget.

IMHO of course.

and yes, everybody including me has an angle.

[Are_grits_groceries]

18. Please send me the exact spot that this is located:

16. actually I think George Washington did too. It is in the constitution

You can say whatever you want and however you want to do it. There has NOT BEEN a formal declaration of war. That has to happen to invoke The War Powers Act. People use the word war for everything as in The War On Drugs. They aren't under the definition of wars that Congress has to agree with.

AND NO funding something which does mean in favor of it does not equal a formal declaration of war. Sorry how these little nitpicky laws get in the way of the President going off on a tear. They manage to finagle their way around it, but that should stop.

Please stop giving me lectures on history about what you assume I don't know. I have a pretty good idea about what Lincoln was up to and other things. I believe he was a great President, but that and a number 1 declaration is up for debate.

As for Bobby, he did do some unfortunate things such as being a supporter of Joseph McCarthy. After John's death, he became very introspective in some ways. In case you don't remember, he spent time visiting the poor in Mississippi for one thing. Whether he was completely changed is up or debate, but I believe that he became much more aware of many things.

Then there is the matter of electing the 'right' people. We are never going to be able to elect everybody we like. That's why we have to keep an eye on what laws are passed and powers allowed. The other side can use them too.

If you are going o let a President do whatever he wants without acknowledging the judicial or legislative bodies, the Constitution has been usurped. He is by default functioning as a dictator. Morsi in Egypt has done the same except he made a huge announcement. If he had kept quiet and worked behind the scenes to amass power, he probably would have pulled it off without as much fuss. People in DC are always lurking about buying power, access to power, and other things to gain as much control as possible. They hope we don't notice.

[graham4anything]

30. the serenity canard applies. Change/Accept/Know the difference

signing statements have been done by many. It is legal.

And Jefferson held slaves til explicity it was ruled that was illegal. He lied and wrote words he never believed, and did unto others what he himself wrote the opposite of.

When you show me where signing statments are illegal, then I will see you know your history.

Nixon was never proven wrong, therefore he was correct.

We don't like in a pollyanna world.

and by the way, how does your treasure, Elizabeth Warren, think she got her job in the first place? Uh, by President Obama giving her the avenue to do just that. Without him, there was no her.Like everything else, she had help. President Obama had help. And he built her so to say.
She would still be teaching and opining (and wanting to cut President Obama's health care, but that is another thread).

Congress can stop whatever they like by defunding it. As they don't it means it is.

[graham4anything]

17. funding=for it

wars are only fought with money congress allocates.

money don't grow out of invisible ATMs

[sabrina 1]

22. Thank god for people like Dennis Kucinich who stood up against Bush's illegal

wars and never once voted to fund them. I see you listing a whole lot of what is actually criminal behavior and rather than condemning it, claiming that once it's done, if the President Does, it's not a crime. I believe Nixon or some other Republican believed that also.

Other countries are now getting their acts together and prosecuting their war criminals after forty years. So you never know, today's untouchables, may find themselves in the same position as some of our former friends and allies in a couple of decades.

I hope so. Seeing it happen elsewhere, gives me hope that it is possible to do what is right and to hold war criminals accountable, even if it takes decades.

May they never rest in peace.

[G_j]

24. +1000

[msanthrope]

36. Kucinich voted for war in the AUMF of 9/18/2001. I hate to bring facts into this. nt

[graham4anything]

26. I prefer to move forward on social issues. Wars have been fought for a million years now

starting with the dinasaurs and later to mankind

they will never end

and the NRA commits war crimes daily. I assue you are for total ban of all guns, legal or illegal.
If not, then don't talk about purity.
Firing a WMD, which a gun is, as they are built to kill, is a war crime IMHO

[graham4anything]

27. That is all fine and good btw, but it doesn't get things passed. It is all best in show

and that is how our government works

Purity doesn't win.

This isn't Israel where they have factions but don't have electoral votes


like the old thingy says

Grant me the serentiy to change the things I can
accept that whcih I cannot change
and to know the difference

one step at a time
10% forward is better than 100% back.

Kucinich and Paul both play a part. But while Dennis has done 1000x more than Paul, both really do not have a track record of forward movement except to help prod the 10%

Dennis is a realist to. And negotiated and got his 20 minutes on tv when he 100% strongly backed President Obama's health care which he did.

you can talk and talk, but Gore and bush were NOT the same, Bush and Kerry were not the same, and Elena Kagen and Sam Alito are not the same.

and if you don't like Obama and Biden, well Jeb will run in 2016 and the choice is to vote for him or for Hillary.
It's not like Jeb will get you even .000001% of what you want.

[sabrina 1]

61. You seem to have a habit of attaching comments to other people's comments and then

writing long screeds that have nothing to do with the comment you appear to be addressing.

Kucinich's success rate regarding sponsoring bills is average in Congress. Only Republicans use this nonsense 'he was ineffective' against him because unlike us, they never bother to look anything up. So much for your 'ineffective' claim.

Eg, he was more effective regarding legislation, than Marcy Kaptur, who I happen to love. Passing bills btw, does not determine how good a member of Congress is. They are not there to just keep passing bills to build up a list of useless accomplishments, although far too many of them do that. And I personally wish they had not passed at least 50% of the useless ones they have passed.

Kucinich's proposed bills were Progressive and should have had the support of all real Democrats. This is what we have to correct, the fact that we do not have enough good Democrats when people like Kucinich are willing to do the dirty work, to back him up.

That is certainly not his fault it simply points out a very real problem we must address. We need to elect hundreds of Kucinich's since his views, according to every poll, are very mainstream.

And please drop the right wing framing of good Democrats 'purist'. It's fine for them to do it, because from them we take it as a compliment. No democrat should use it in such a derogatory way against an actual, real Democrat.

[kossp]

62. I almost always agree with Congressman Kucinich.

He has always been a stalwart supporter of the Constitution and has been equally critical of Democrats and Republicans when he perceives an unconstitutional issue, like these drone assassinations. I'm glad he's speaking up and I truly wish that he was coming back next year.
You're right, we need a bunch more like him.

[msanthrope]

33. Kucinich voted for war in the AUMF of 9/18/2001, invoking the War Powers Act.

You can look it up. Barbara Lee is the only representative who voted against it.

[msanthrope]

32. Yes. Ron Paul voted for it. The AUMF of 9/18/2001 invoking the War Powers Act.

It was in all the papers.

[coalition_unwilling]

40. Your ignorance of history (and of German history in particular) is breathtaking. Hitler

did not "win" an election. He was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg, even though the Nazi Party's share of the vote had declined in the most recent election before Hitler's appointment. Hindenburg was prevailed upon by that weasel Van Papen who thought naively that he could control Hitler once Hilter had the reins of power.

Hitler NEVER received a majority in any free and fair election conducted in Weimar Germnay. NEVER.

[graham4anything]

43. What point is this? Technically, neither did Bill Clinton BECAUSE OF IDIOTIC THIRD PARTIES

Clinton won in 1992 with 42% of the vote. (meaning the majority of Americans did not vote for him)

Some say had Perot not been in the race, 41 would have gotten 57% of the vote to 42%.

Third parties only play mischief to one side or the other. And never seriously win.

you make my point on 3rd parties, thank you.

[coalition_unwilling]

44. My point was to point out how your historical analogy is an EPIC FAIL because

of your ignorance of one of the elements in the analogy (in this case, German history).

You wrote that "Hitler won". He did NOT WIN! The NSDAP's share of the popular vote declined in the final election before Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Only in your mind could that be construed as "Hitler won."

[graham4anything]

45. He wasn't in charge then? All the killings were due to someone else? He was singular.

when he died, it died with him.

Too bad an unmanned drone didn't strike him down before the 15 plus million died.
Even if there were a few collateral, well, 15 million minus say 50 collateral equals
14million 999 thousand nine hundred and fifty people still alive.

I like those numbers.

NOthing is spot on perfect in real life, as humans are not perfect so perfect is out

But an unmanned drone gets the job done with the least amount of human loss ever created.

Isn't the idea to save soldier's lives?

[coalition_unwilling]

51. You remained conveniently, albeit understandably, silent before

the question I posed elsewhere in this thread, so I'll pose it again:

How many German civilians would you be willing to sacrifice, in order to execute Hitler extra-judicially?

[graham4anything]

56. I just answered it.

If there were 20 million killed by hitler, and a drone killed 50 collateral

then 19,999,950 people alive vs. 50 collateral dead

so the answer would be 50, or 500 even. anything where the first number was reduced so many fold, is a savings of human beings.

nobody is perfect as we are talking about human beings here.
so mistakes happen.

but would you rather start a draft of all age people male and female?


Wars have been fought since the dinosaurs. Wars will be fought thousands of years from now. Shit happens in wars.

BTW, as Eisenhower started Vietnam, and supposedly bid a final farewell to the German POWS at the end of WW2, maybe he was a war criminal in the first degree?

[coalition_unwilling]

69. OK, so your answer for the record is that you are willing to sacrifice 50 German civilians

so that Hitler can be executed extra-judicially. How many of those 50 will you allow to be children, recognizing of course that any one of those children might be the next Einstein or Salk?

[graham4anything]

74. How many of the 20 million killed actually would have? BTW-Einstein was Jewish.

I love it, you would rather have 20million killed to say purity, yet if only 50 died that is not good enough.

much bloviating.

[coalition_unwilling]

78. I'll let the facts speak for themselves: You will gladly sacrifice 50 German children to

execute extra-judicially Adolf Hitler.

I don't know how you sleep at night or how you wash the blood that drips from your hands. But whatever you've got to tell yourself.

[graham4anything]

85. Your whole argument is bogus. Who said anyone else but Mr. Hitler would die?

where do you get your other people from?

The same dumb argument was used on the gun threads by an NRA person.

I for one am more afraid of the NRA and people who use legal guns to shoot up a movie theatre and posting threads about a movie named V.( for fiction). while breaking my right to peaceful assembly and my life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

No one died under Jimmy Carter's watch, yet democrats tossed Jimmy Carter into the river for some reason.

[coalition_unwilling]

89. You clearly have not been paying attention to the gist of this thread which is that

drone strikes (of which you're so enamored) have killed as many as 3,000 civilians, i.e., non-combatants.

You've got a serious case of bloodlust going. Don't let me stop you. Cold water works well to remove bloodstains.

[Bonobo]

90. My read on his position is that he would sacrifice 19.9 million to save 20 million.

That is what his "logic" dictates.

[coalition_unwilling]

91. He would sacrifice 19.9 million on the mere off chance he might save 20 million. But yeah

I take your point.

[coalition_unwilling]

42. Anti-semitism and nationalism are what enabled Hitler who then used those

currents to consolidate unchecked executive power. (I think the German term is 'Gleichschaltung' but not sure of the exact translation.)

Edit: Other factors that enabled Hitler were a) internecine feuding between Communists and Socialists, allowing Hitler to pick each group off individually and b) a really shitty economy and capitalism's failure to respond to the crisis in a timely manner.

[raouldukelives]

11. Or in the 1800's.

Wiping out indigenous poor people with technology light years ahead of their own in order to take the lands for profit. Sounds familiar.

[HiPointDem]

20. more than 6 million have died in congo & the us is in the middle of the action.

[zipplewrath]

34. And then another one

I don't really think you understand 1930's history very well. Hitler was surrounded by people who would have gladly stepped into his position. You could have kept killing them all, they'd just keep coming. The problem was that Germany, and much of the world, was "open" to this kind of leadership. The "solution" to this problem is not killing people, it is eliminating the conditions that create/empower them.

And the end of the day WWII was aptly named because it was reall WWI 2.0. WW II was basically a restart/continuation of WW I. Of course WW I was in many ways a fall out of the Balkan wars. WW I also set the stage for the "cold war" which of course spawned several wars such as Vietnam and the Soviets Afghanistan war, which of course spawned the Mujahadeen which spawned 9-11 which lead to the Iraq war and is still used by Obama as a justification for our Afgan war.

See a pattern here? All we are doing with drones is setting up the next war.

Peace is not the inability to create war, it is the ability to create war, and choosing not to.

If you hope for peace and plan for war, you'll get war.

[coalition_unwilling]

39. How many German civilians would you have been willing to sacrifice to

execute Hitler extra-judicially?

[graham4anything]

4. BTW- I don't like the house (which is republican) attempting to upsurp Presidential powers

[DerekG]

8. Don't presidents have authority to assassinate U.S. citizens now?

If so, I desperately want Congress to usurp Presidential powers.

[kossp]

12. If I remember my civics class from a long time ago

isn't the legislative branch (Congress) and the Judicial branch (Courts) supposed to be a check on the Executive branch?
I'm of the same mind as you, the President, any President, should not have the power to summarily execute any american citizen w/o a trial.

[coalition_unwilling]

48. The President should not have the power to summarily execute anyone without

a trial (aka "Due process of the law&quot . I don't give a flying fuck if the President has a 'D' after his or her name.

[kossp]

53. I don't think so either.

Anyone who thinks this is ok knows nothing about how our system is supposed to work and should take a civics class.

And sooner or later, later I hope, a republican will hold the office of President again and I certainly don't want them with this kind of, what I think, unconstitutional power.
Matter of fact, the whole patriot act is, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

[sabrina 1]

63. Welcome to DU kossp. I could not agree with you more. I do not believe they

should or even do have that power. It has not yet been tested where it counts, in a court of law. It is definitely against International law but since the US extricated itself under Bush, from the ICC, we apparently can do whatever we want.

It's just plain tragic that any American left or right would support such a policy and I hope that before it gets totally out of hand, something can be done to stop it.

[kossp]

65. Thank you kindly.

I am flabbergasted that anyone, whether they be Democrat or Republican, is ok with this unchecked power, this is not what our country is supposed to be about.
I'm trying to figure out when the rule of law was abandoned and replaced with summary executions of citizens, foreign or domestic, because someone says their terrorists?
What happened to Due Process? The presumption of innocence?
This is not the country I grew up in and I fear for it's future.

[sabrina 1]

67. I do not know the origin either, but it seems to have begun openly during the Bush

years at which time the Left was vehemently opposed to any President having that kind of awesome power.

Now the Left seems to have become silent or outright supports it. The PTB know how to manipulate the public to get their way. If only the public would prove them wrong sometimes.

[coalition_unwilling]

92. Actually, it's the "pseudo left" that have become silent or outright support extra-judicial

execution(s). The true left was and is, and always will stand proudly for, due process of the law, quaint and obsolete though that may be.

[HiPointDem]

21. Is execution without trial a presidential power now? when did they write that into the

constitution?

[msanthrope]

41. Osama Bin Laden should have had a trial? When we declare war (as we did on 9/18/2001)

we don't have to give enemies in the field a trial. Enemies we capture? Yes. But not an Article III one.

That should ring a bell for all those who have taken a civics class. You could try reading ex parte Quirin if you need constitutional clarification.

[coalition_unwilling]

50. There was no Declaration of War on 9/18/2001. I defy you to

introduce proof of said Declaration.

Last Declaration of War was World War II, IIRC.

[msanthrope]

55. Right here--and we went to war in Afghanistan on it--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

Now, you are going to claim that the "Last Declaration of War" was WWII. But that is a poor understanding of Article 1, Section 8, which does not specify what form Congress must use when declaring action.

You'll want to read Massachusetts v. Laird, 400 U.S. 886 (1970) on that point.

[coalition_unwilling]

59. Gee, that's funny. The link you give me references a piece of legislation called

an "Authorization for Use of Military Force . . . " and not a "Declaration of War." Come to think of it, declaring war on terrorism (or on 'terrorists') is a bit like declaring war on 'tanks' (or on 'tankers'). Which may explain why we have lost.

Silly, me, for being so logo-centric. Words have meaning, in my universe.

[msanthrope]

73. Vietnam was not a war? Afghanistan and Iraq are not wars? The Constitution does not

tell the Congress what they must call a declaration of war--so they can call it "Declaration of War" or they can call it "Authorization For Use of Military Force." Since you are so logo-centric, go read the part in the AUMF that invokes The War Powers Act.

This issue was settled back in the 70's when men tried to avoid the draft by stating that since Vietnam was not a "declared war," they were not eligible to be conscripted. Guess what?

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution declared war, and those men were subject to the draft. Read the case I cited.

And stop dissing veterans who fought in those wars. They are war veterans.

[coalition_unwilling]

76. Fact: you're the one who claimed we 'declared war on Sept 18, 2001'. If you meant we 'authorized

the use of military force,' you could have simply said so.

Um, Vietnam was not a 'war' properly speaking. I guess we would have to debate what the word 'war' means, but it usually refers to a military conflict between two relatively evenly matched nation states (or alliances thereof). Had Vietnam been a 'war' (properly speaking), the U.S. would have lost far more than the 54,000 soldiers it lost. (Think 1-2 million, roughly what the Vietnamese lost.)

Likewise, Afghanistan and Iraq were\are not 'wars' since there was no declaration of war, nor were the sides evenly matched. Again, had it actually been a war, the U.S. would have lost far more than the 5,000 soliders it actually did lose. (Think 1-2 million, roughly what the Iraqi casualty count was.)

How dare you accuse me of 'dissing soldiers,' since I have been vigiling with them (Veterans for Peace and Iraq Vets Against the War) for some 8 years on a bi- and tri-weekly basis and have participated in Arlington West on more than one weekend. What did you do to support the troops or stop the wars? In fact, why don't you go fuck yourself?

[msanthrope]

81. Yes. We declared war, invoking the War Powers Act under the auspices of Article 1, Section 8. Read

the resolution where that happens--you can't miss it. The Constitution doesn't require that you title the document 'Declaration of War' when you invoke under Article 1, Section 8, but that's the power invoked:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Now--not for anything but when you were "vigiling" with the Iraq Vets Against the War, did you tell them that they were mistaken--there have been no wars since WWII? I'm betting that you didn't.

As to your last line, I'm guessing that your need to resort to profanity and personal insult is a result of realizing the foolishness of your argument.

[coalition_unwilling]

83. Um, no, actually my profanity was directed at the asshole who accused me of

"dissing soldiers'. That would be you.

[msanthrope]

84. Well, yes, I do think it is disrespectful to tell a war veteran that what they served in wasn't a

war, particularly when one is completely and utterly wrong.

When you were "vigiling" with the Iraq Vets Against the War did you tell them you meant WWII, as the conflict they were in wasn't a war?

Again, your profanity and personal insults only indicate that you've lost the argument.

[coalition_unwilling]

86. No, but then they were never so assinine as to claim that the U.S. declared war. In fact, I was

first turned on to the one-sided nature of these conflicts and the fact that they are NOT WARS by a vet. It would never have occurred to me, I don't think.

[msanthrope]

94. A war vet told you he wasn't in a war and you decided to base your knowledge of civics

on that particular insight?

I don't think that's a sound basis on which to do constitutional analysis. Generally, one denies Acts of Congress with metaphysical arguments at one's peril.

Your post reminds me of many birther posts I've read--complete denial of law and reality, but some dude introduced you to the mindblowing 'truth' based on anecdote.....

[coalition_unwilling]

96. First I was 'dissing soldiers' and now I'm a 'birther.' It's off to Ignore

for you. Hope you have a nice life or whatevs.

[msanthrope]

99. Yes, I find that claiming that war veterans didn't actually serve in a war to be a disrespectful

viewpoint. I find it striking that you describe coming to this conclusion while "vigiling" with Iraq Vets Against the War.

Further, I find your argumentation about what invokes the War Power in Article 1 Section 8 to be on par with persons who claim that a "Certificate of Live Birth" is not the same as a "Birth Certificate." I think you should read the long-form of the AUMF.

[TransitJohn]

77. Congress hasn't declared war since 1941. eom

n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

79. Watch out or you'll be accused of 'dissing soldiers' :) - n/t

[msanthrope]

82. That argument was tried in the 70's, as a means to avoid the draft. It didn't work

then, either. Read Massachusetts v. Laird, 400 U.S. 886 (1970)

[Ter]

98. So bow to your masters while they control your life

The President is wrong on this issue big time.

[kelliekat44]

13. War by any means is NOT the answer. If our policies do not match out rhetoric.

We are fast becoming that which we say we abhor.

[Lucinda]

14. Good.

[PETRUS]

23. K&R

[ProSense]

25. "Bipartisan Resolution"

I thought you couldn't negotiate with terrorists?

[SidDithers]

29. Kucinich - Paul bipartisanship is OK, I guess...nt

Sid

[SidDithers]

28. Fuck Ron Paul...nt

Sid

[RomneyLies]

47. And Kucinich is on his way out the door.

I doubt we'll hear much from him in the future. I don't expect him to make a Grayson comeback, but I've been surprised before.

[Octafish]

35. Kucinich will always care...

...about the Constitution.

The ones in favor of President Obama killing whoever he likes may one day realize their foolishness.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/06/the-cia-and-the-drones

[graham4anything]

49. I think I died and woke up on a Ron Paul website

anyone here, seen my old friend David Duke?
Can you tell me where he's gone
He wrote all of Ron Paul's literature, then it was denied

told me all I ever needed to know about Ron Paul and anything with his name on it

three sheets (with six eyeholes) to the wind

that is Ron Paul.

thanks, but wake me up when Ron Paul is not idolized on DU

(with apologizes to Dion who (c) the orignal song I was spoofing with the one liner above.)

[G_j]

52. intellectual dishonesty

(you can look up the definition) ,the issue is Drones not Ron Paul and I haven't seen anyone loving him here.

[graham4anything]

54. It's Ron Paul's bill. Ron Paul did not sign Kucinich's impeachment bill back then.

[kossp]

60. Truth be told, I don't care whose bill it is!!!!!

No President, no matter what letter they have behind their name, should have the authority or power to summarily execute anyone, whether they be foreign or american citizens.
We have a justice system that affords people the right of innocence until proven guilty, so how are these drone strikes constitutional?

This is not who we are as a country and I have a hard time understanding how anyone can defend this unchecked power.

[woo me with science]

72. Of course you are right.

This "So-and-so-opposes-it-so-we-should-favor-it" is grade school ridiculousness that does not even warrant a serious response.

I liked Leftymom's reply to a similar silly bleat over on this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1901355

[RomneyLies]

57. It might actually mean something if it included Congress members who will also be members in the

113th Congress, too.

Right now, the only Congress members saying anything are just lame ducks with nothing better to do.

As-is you only have Holt returning of the three, and he has the lowest profile of the three.

He's also a Quaker which makes any opposition to anything war related easily dismissed by the media.

You need to get Grayson and one Republican who will be in the 113th Congress to get on board, then, maybe, it could mean something.

[woo me with science]

71. That's a stellar third grade argument.

I am certain I heard Ron Paul say he opposes strangling puppies, too, so I guess we'd better get a mess of 'em and some rope.

[coalition_unwilling]

80. LOL - Good one! - n/t

[Bonobo]

88. So your political opinions are based on what?

Based on your own thinking, or

based on fetishizing over political celebrities and the factions surrounding them?

[graham4anything]

93. I am against the NRA and guns and lobby groups & republibertarianstea party

Guns kill alot more people yearly than drones have in the history of the world

ban all guns in the streets.

And get rid of the NRA, which is the world's #1 lobby group.

I have never been wrong in any election except for 2000.

and Janet Reno was a great public figure, who I hope will come back in some role in Hillary's admistration. A truly historic figure (and wow could she dance, as she did on SNL with Dana Carvey).

remember
Grant me the serenity to change the things I can
to accept what I cannot change
and to know the difference

and remember, as Bing Crosby said in White Christmas, "Everybody's got an angle"
and everybody does.

and remember Ron Paul's name on anything means it is worthless.

winning is the only thing that matters.
bloviating with someone who can't win is a waste of time.

[sagat]

64. Nothing wrong with drone strikes.

Kucinich et al. need to come off it.

[kossp]

66. Respectfully, you're ok with the killing of innocent

men, women and children? You're ok with the President, any President, having the power to summarily execute anyone he deems as a threat or a terrorist? What about Due Process? What about the presumption of innocence?

[coalition_unwilling]

68. Due Process and Presumption of Innocence are so

20th Century, so (dare I say it) "quaint and obsolete" (much like the Geneva Conventions).

(in case it's needed)

[Marrah_G]

95. So you would have no issue with another country using them on us?

Like if we were harboring someone they thought needed to die?

[coalition_unwilling]

97. Bravo! I wish I could rec this reply a million times to the heavens. You cut

through all the bullshit and demolish the pro-drone rationale with two simple questions.

Game, set, match.

[coalition_unwilling]

70. Emphatic K&R - n/t

[RobertEarl]

75. Kick for the right thing

This life and death situation needs to be explained and then denied except in time of war which should also be refused.

Gawd, are we gonna miss Kucinich.

[Bonobo]

87. Thank you. Unending drone attacks...

in countries with whom we are not at war and based solely on the discretion of the executive branch and the CIA are an absolute horror.

Unending outrage at this policy is the right position no matter who is POTUS.