Obama 2: Attention, une hypocrisie peut en cacher une autre ! (Kill them all and let God sort them out: Four years of killing and they put you back in the White House)

Tuez-les tous, Dieu reconnaîtra les siens. (propos attribués à)  Arnaud Amaury

Les drones américains ont liquidé plus de monde que le nombre total des détenus de Guantanamo. Pouvons nous être certains qu’il n’y avait parmi eux aucun cas d’erreurs sur la personne ou de morts innocentes ? Les prisonniers de Guantanamo avaient au moins une chance d’établir leur identité, d’être examinés par un Comité de surveillance et, dans la plupart des cas, d’être relâchés. Ceux qui restent à Guantanamo ont été contrôlés et, finalement, devront faire face à une forme quelconque de procédure judiciaire. Ceux qui ont été tués par des frappes de drones, quels qu’ils aient été, ont disparu. Un point c’est tout. Kurt Volker

L’Amérique ne «torture pas», avait déclaré à son arrivée aux affaires en 2009 le président Obama. Il avait immédiatement demandé la publication des fameux mémos juridiques de l’Administration Bush, qui justifiaient l’utilisation par la CIA de «techniques d’interrogatoire renforcées» dans sa guerre contre le terrorisme. Les pratiques de torture avaient été déclarées interdites. (…) Ironie de l’histoire, ce même président s’est depuis arrogé un droit de tuer, demandant à son tour à ses conseillers de rédiger une série de mémos donnant une justification juridique à ses décisions d’élimination de tel ou tel individu, au nom de la nécessité de protéger l’Amé­rique. Ces documents secrets représentent la base légale sur laquelle s’appuie l’Administration Obama pour justifier les intenses campagnes secrètes de drones qu’elle mène contre les terroristes islamistes, dans sa guerre contre al-Qaida.«Le parallèle avec les mémos de l’Administration Bush sur la torture est glaçant», note Vincent Warren, directeur exécutif du Centre pour les droits constitutionnels, parlant de l’«hypocrisie d’Obama», qui critiquait son prédécesseur mais s’est arrogé un immense pouvoir, non contrôlé par le Congrès, en matière de guerre contre le terrorisme. (…) Mais ce qui frappe, c’est que le débat intervienne si tardivement. Cela fait au moins trois ans que des articles décrivent «le droit de tuer» que s’est arrogé Obama, les listes de cibles qu’il se voit soumettre régulièrement, et la «responsabilité» solitaire qu’il estime devoir assumer. Pourtant le sujet n’a jamais semblé choquer l’opinion, malgré les nombreuses victimes collatérales que font les bombardements «chirurgicaux» des avions sans pilote. Les conséquences de ces frappes, qui entretiennent une haine tenace de l’Amérique, sont potentiellement explosives, en termes de recrutement de nouveaux soldats du djihad. En affirmant que l’Amérique a le droit d’agir parce qu’elle mène une guerre, qui ne s’applique pas à un territoire précis, contre un ennemi multiforme, la Maison-Blanche crée aussi un dangereux précédent, qui pourrait bien être utilisé à l’avenir par la Russie, la Chine ou l’Iran pour aller éliminer leurs propres ennemis. Pourquoi, dès lors, les alliés de l’Amérique restent-ils silencieux, alors qu’ils accablaient Bush? Le Figaro

Attention: une hypocrisie peut en cacher une autre !

En ce jour où le tout récemment réélu Executioner in chief de la Maison Blanche vient de passer son grand oral de début de 2e mandat …

Et qu’il est sur le point d’installer à la tête de la CIA le concepteur même de sa nouvelle « drone doctrine » …

Pendant qu’à la demande d’un gouvernement non élu, le Pays autoproclamé des droits de l’homme se voit contraint d’intervenir au Mali contre les mêmes djihadistes qu’il avait soutenus en Libye …

Retour avec nos belles au bois dormant du Figaro et d’ailleurs …

Sur un curieux oubli d’une presse qui n’avait pourtant pas de mots assez durs pour stigmatiser la détention et les interrogatoires musclés contre les terroristes de Guantanamo …

A savoir, même s’il n’est bien sûr pas question ici de pleurer sur le sort d’une telle racaille, les quelque 3 000 assassinats ciblés effectués par l’Administration Obama en quatre ans soit plus de trois fois le nombre total de terroristes détenus à Guantanamo du temps de son prédécesseur (779 dont 520 libérés avant 2008) …

Drones : Obama s’arroge «le droit de tuer»

Laure Mandeville

Le Figaro

07/02/2013

La polémique fait rage sur ce nouveau droit de la guerre mis en avant par le président.

L’Amérique ne «torture pas», avait déclaré à son arrivée aux affaires en 2009 le président Obama. Il avait immédiatement demandé la publication des fameux mémos juridiques de l’Administration Bush, qui justifiaient l’utilisation par la CIA de «techniques d’interrogatoire renforcées» dans sa guerre contre le terrorisme. Les pratiques de torture avaient été déclarées interdites.

Ironie de l’histoire, ce même président s’est depuis arrogé un droit de tuer, demandant à son tour à ses conseillers de rédiger une série de mémos donnant une justification juridique à ses décisions d’élimination de tel ou tel individu, au nom de la nécessité de protéger l’Amé­rique. Ces documents secrets représentent la base légale sur laquelle s’appuie l’Administration Obama pour justifier les intenses campagnes secrètes de drones qu’elle mène contre les terroristes islamistes, dans sa guerre contre al-Qaida. Ils posent notamment le cadre juridique qui a «justifié» l’assassinat ciblé du citoyen américain Anwar al-Awlaqi, un imam radicalisé connu pour ses diatribes antiaméricaines sur Internet, éliminé en septembre 2011 au Yémen par un drone parti d’une base secrète de la CIA en Arabie saoudite. Le Washington Post, qui a été le premier à révéler l’existence de cette base, soulignait jeudi qu’il reste difficile de savoir si les notes juridiques secrètes réclamées par Obama ont été rédigées avant ou après la mort d’al-Awlaqi.

Longtemps entourés du plus grand secret, malgré les requêtes multiples du Congrès, les mémos ont été transmis mercredi soir en toute hâte aux Comités du renseignement de la Chambre et du Sénat. Clairement, il faut éteindre l’incendie médiatique et politique avant l’audition de confirmation de John Brennan à la tête de la CIA, ce jeudi. Cet ancien conseiller antiterroriste d’Obama est l’architecte de l’intensification de la guerre secrète des drones.

Un épais brouillard juridique

C’est l’obtention et la mise en ligne par la chaîne NBC d’un livre blanc non classifié mais resté jusqu’ici confidentiel, reprenant les grandes lignes de l’argumentation juridique de la présidence, qui a poussé Obama à céder aux élus sur les mémos. Le livre blanc suscite en effet depuis lundi une controverse, à cause du caractère très vague de certaines formulations: il stipule en effet que le pouvoir américain peut cibler des citoyens américains s’ils sont «des dirigeants supérieurs et opérationnels» d’al-Qaida ou d’organisations affiliées et s’ils font courir «un danger imminent» aux États-Unis.

Comment est défini un danger imminent? Était-ce le cas pour Anwar al-Awlaqi? Ces interrogations baignent dans un épais brouillard. Le livre blanc affirme qu’il appartient «à un officiel informé et de haut niveau» de prendre la décision de frapper telle ou telle cible. «Le parallèle avec les mémos de l’Administration Bush sur la torture est glaçant», note Vincent Warren, directeur exécutif du Centre pour les droits constitutionnels, parlant de l’«hypocrisie d’Obama», qui critiquait son prédécesseur mais s’est arrogé un immense pouvoir, non contrôlé par le Congrès, en matière de guerre contre le terrorisme.

«Il est très dérangeant de voir la logique biaisée des juristes imprimée noir sur blanc», note de son côté l’éditorial du New York Times de mercredi. «Cela a tout l’air d’une justification rédigée après que la décision politique a été prise.» «Je me sens mal à l’aise», reconnaît le représentant démocrate Keith Ellison sur CNN.

Les élus n’en ont pas moins accueilli positivement l’annonce de la transmission des mémos, parlant d’un «premier pas important». Le représentant Ron Wyden, un démocrate de l’Oregon, qui avait carrément menacé de bloquer la confirmation de Brennan, espère que le Congrès contribuera à préciser le cadre légal des campagnes de drones.

Mais ce qui frappe, c’est que le débat intervienne si tardivement. Cela fait au moins trois ans que des articles décrivent «le droit de tuer» que s’est arrogé Obama, les listes de cibles qu’il se voit soumettre régulièrement, et la «responsabilité» solitaire qu’il estime devoir assumer. Pourtant le sujet n’a jamais semblé choquer l’opinion, malgré les nombreuses victimes collatérales que font les bombardements «chirurgicaux» des avions sans pilote. Les conséquences de ces frappes, qui entretiennent une haine tenace de l’Amérique, sont potentiellement explosives, en termes de recrutement de nouveaux soldats du djihad.

En affirmant que l’Amérique a le droit d’agir parce qu’elle mène une guerre, qui ne s’applique pas à un territoire précis, contre un ennemi multiforme, la Maison-Blanche crée aussi un dangereux précédent, qui pourrait bien être utilisé à l’avenir par la Russie, la Chine ou l’Iran pour aller éliminer leurs propres ennemis. Pourquoi, dès lors, les alliés de l’Amérique restent-ils silencieux, alors qu’ils accablaient Bush?

INTERVIEW – Hina Shamsi, directrice du National Security Project à l’ACLU

Vous dites que le livre blanc donnant une justification juridique au «droit de tuer» est glaçant. Pourquoi?

Ce livre blanc est effrayant, car il révèle en termes juridiques l’énorme pouvoir que s’arroge l’exécutif pour décider de tuer des citoyens américains partout dans le monde, loin de tout champ de bataille reconnu comme tel, sans la moindre implication d’une autorité judiciaire. Cette approche dangereuse constitue une redéfinition des limites qui encadrent l’utilisation de la force par le gouvernement. Car, si le document évoque des limites, il apparaît qu’il n’y a, en réalité, pas de véritables limitations, puisque le gouvernement n’a pas besoin de démontrer l’existence d’un complot imminent pour agir.

Les critères énoncés par la présidence pour cibler des citoyens américains ne sont pas compatibles avec la Constitution américaine ou le droit international. Et nous ne savons pas ce que sont les critères pour cibler des individus non américains.

Y voyez-vous un précédent dangereux en droit international?

Tout à fait. Le point de vue juridique de l’Administration crée un précédent, qui doit inquiéter les alliés de l’Amérique jusqu’ici silencieux. Car la Russie, l’Iran ou la Chine pourraient invoquer ce précédent pour mener des actions unilatérales similaires.

* Juriste, Hina Shamsi est chargée du dossier de la sécurité nationale à l’Union américaine pour les libertés civiques.

Voir aussi:

The Questions Brennan Can’t Dodge

Mary Ellen O’Connell

SOUTH BEND, Ind.

The New York Times

February 6, 2013

AT his confirmation hearing today, John O. Brennan, President Obama’s nominee to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, is likely to face tough questions on a host of topics, including the soaring use of drone strikes, which have killed at least four Americans, one of them intentionally; his performance as the president’s counterterrorism adviser; the rise of Islamist radicalism in northern Africa; and his past comments on engagement with Iran.

The senators should also hold Mr. Brennan to account for one of the administration’s gravest failings: its refusal to openly discuss the legal basis for America’s campaign of targeted killings of terrorism suspects, including Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen and radical imam who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen in September 2011.

We learned this week, thanks to reporting by NBC News, of a 16-page, unsigned, undated Justice Department “white paper” that outlines the Obama administration’s legal reasoning about targeted killing. The paper asserts that the government may lawfully kill a United States citizen if “an informed, high-level official” decides that the target is a high-ranking Qaeda figure or affiliate who poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and that capturing him is not feasible.

The paper’s sweeping claims of executive power are audacious. For a threat to be deemed “imminent,” it is not necessary for a specific attack to be under way. The paper denies Congress and the federal courts a role in authorizing the killings — or even reviewing them afterward. In doing so, it cites the authorization of force that Congress granted to President George W. Bush after 9/11.

Yesterday, the White House suddenly agreed to let the two Congressional committees on intelligence see classified legal “advice” related to the white paper — a good but insufficient step. The administration should fully release the 2010 classified memorandum that was the basis for the unclassified, leaked white paper.

I was struck to find my name on Page 4 of the white paper, which summarized my argument that “the conflict between the United States and Al Qaeda cannot lawfully extend to nations outside Afghanistan in which the level of hostilities is less intense or prolonged than in Afghanistan itself.”

The lawyers dismissed my view, arguing that “there is little judicial or other authoritative precedent” on the issue, since the nation is fighting a “transnational, non-state actor” where the “principal theater of operations” is not in a country in conflict with America.

These are more than legal quibbles.

When Hellfire missiles were first used in drone strikes to kill outside a combat zone — in Yemen, in 2002 — six men died, including an American. A United Nations special rapporteur declared the action unlawful, but C.I.A. drone attacks have increased substantially since then: the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a nonprofit news organization in London, estimates the number of persons killed in drone attacks at 3,000 to 4,500, including well over 200 children.

Today, the United States is involved in a true armed conflict only in Afghanistan. Yet drone attacks have been carried out in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan and may soon begin in Libya, Mali and Nigeria. None of these countries have attacked America, so no right of self-defense can be invoked under the United Nations Charter, as the white paper asserts.

The Bush administration memos that attempted to justify torture, indefinite detention and illegal wiretapping have been widely rejected. How, then, can Mr. Brennan and other advisers to Mr. Obama (a former lecturer on constitutional law) condone this spurious effort to justify targeted killings?

Terms like “armed conflict,” “combat” and “battlefield” are integral to the proper functioning of human rights law and international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions. Such definitions are well established and can no more be tampered with to suit the administration’s preferences than can the definition of torture. Sadly, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which under Mr. Bush drafted the notorious memo that narrowly construed torture as severe pain causing “organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death,” has now, under Mr. Obama, drafted the targeted-killings document.

The white paper cites a 2010 speech by Harold H. Koh, the State Department’s top lawyer and a former dean of Yale Law School. He once testified that the main Bush-era torture memo was “perhaps the most clearly erroneous legal opinion I have ever read.” Having read the white paper, I think it’s a tossup.

Targeted killings are, of course, different from torture: the C.I.A.’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” were largely kept secret until the so-called torture memos came to light. But the launching of Hellfire missiles and the dropping of 500-pound bombs, even in remote rural areas, can hardly be kept secret.

Putting aside whether the targeted killings are even effective, the law must take precedence. Outside of armed conflict zones, the killing of innocent bystanders cannot be tolerated. The Justice Department has concocted an elastic definition of necessity — attempting to justify force in the absence of an immediate lethal threat — without citing any treaty or decision by an international court.

Members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have a duty to interrogate Mr. Brennan on all of these issues — not just the attacks but the legal pretexts for them. They should also demand the full, public release of all the legal analyses behind targeted killings.

“Secret law” is an oxymoron. The rule of law is the basis of our democracy and the foundation of international relations. Facts like operational details may properly be kept confidential, but not the law itself.

Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame, is the editor of “What Is War? An Investigation in the Wake of 9/11.”

Voir également:

To Kill an American

The New York Times

February 5, 2013

On one level, there were not too many surprises in the newly disclosed “white paper” offering a legal reasoning behind the claim that President Obama has the power to order the killing of American citizens who are believed to be part of Al Qaeda. We knew Mr. Obama and his lawyers believed he has that power under the Constitution and federal law. We also knew that he utterly rejects the idea that Congress or the courts have any right to review such a decision in advance, or even after the fact.

Still, it was disturbing to see the twisted logic of the administration’s lawyers laid out in black and white. It had the air of a legal justification written after the fact for a policy decision that had already been made, and it brought back unwelcome memories of memos written for President George W. Bush to justify illegal wiretapping, indefinite detention, kidnapping, abuse and torture.

The document, obtained and made public by NBC News, was written by the Justice Department and coyly describes another, classified document (which has been described in The Times) that actually provided the legal justification for ordering the killing of American citizens.

That document still has not been provided to Congress, despite repeated demands from lawmakers. The white paper was sent to Capitol Hill seven months after the military carried out President Obama’s orders to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, an American who moved to Yemen and became an advocate of jihad against the United States.

In private, administration officials say Mr. Awlaki was a commander of an Al Qaeda affiliate and actively involved in planning attacks on the United States. Publicly, it has refused even to acknowledge that Mr. Obama ordered Mr. Awlaki killed or back up its claim that he was an active terrorist. The White House has vigorously fought holding any court hearing over the killing of Mr. Awlaki or his 16-year-old son, who was killed in a subsequent attack.

The American Civil Liberties Union is suing to have the operational memo on those killings released, arguing that an American citizen has constitutional rights that a judge must make sure are being respected. We agree.

According to the white paper, the Constitution and the Congressional authorization for the use of force after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, gave Mr. Obama the right to kill any American citizen that an “informed, high-level official” decides is a “senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or an associated force” and presents an “imminent threat of violent attack.”

It never tries to define what an “informed, high-level official” might be, and the authors of the memo seem to have redefined the word “imminent” in a way that diverges sharply from its customary meaning. It talks about “due process” and the need to balance a person’s life “against the United States’ interest in forestalling the threat of violence and death to other Americans.”

But it takes the position that the only “oversight” needed for such a decision resides within the executive branch, and there is no need to explain the judgment to Congress, the courts or the public — or, indeed, to even acknowledge that the killing took place.

The paper argues that judges and Congress don’t have the right to rule on or interfere with decisions made in the heat of combat. Some officials also draw a parallel to police officers who use violence to protect the innocent. Even in wartime, there are many ways to review commanders’ and soldiers’ decisions, and while courts-martial are internal to the military, their verdicts are subject to appeal to a civilian judge. When a police officer so much as discharges his weapon, it triggers a great deal of review, based on rules that are known to everyone.

The white paper “is a confusing blend of self-defense and law of war concepts and doesn’t clearly explain whether there is a different standard for killing a senior Al Qaeda leader depending on whether he is a citizen,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies. “Its due process analysis is especially weak.”

The memo could and should have been released months ago. The administration could and should have provided a select number of lawmakers with the specifics on the killing of Mr. Awlaki and his son. The president could and should have acknowledged that decision and explained it.

Going forward, he should submit decisions like this one to review by Congress and the courts. If necessary, Congress could create a special court to handle this sort of sensitive discussion, like the one it created to review wiretapping. This dispute goes to the fundamental nature of our democracy, to the relationship among the branches of government and to their responsibility to the public.

Voir encore:

Congress to See Memo Backing Drone Attacks on Americans

Michael D. Shear and Scott Shane

The New York Times

February 6, 2013

WASHINGTON — The White House on Wednesday directed the Justice Department to release to the two Congressional Intelligence Committees classified documents discussing the legal justification for killing, by drone strikes and other means, American citizens abroad who are considered terrorists.

The White House announcement appears to refer to a long, detailed 2010 memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel justifying the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric who had joined Al Qaeda in Yemen. He was killed in a C.I.A. drone strike in September 2011. Members of Congress have long demanded access to the legal memorandum.

The decision to release the legal memo to the Intelligence Committees came under pressure, two days after a bipartisan group of 11 senators joined a growing chorus asking for more information about the legal justification for targeted killings, especially of Americans.

The announcement also came on the eve of the confirmation hearing scheduled for Thursday afternoon for John O. Brennan, President Obama’s choice to be director of the C.I.A., who has been the chief architect of the drone program as Mr. Obama’s counterterrorism adviser.

Critics accused Mr. Obama of hypocrisy for keeping the legal opinions on targeted killing secret, noting that in 2009 he had ordered the public release of the classified memos governing C.I.A. interrogations under President George W. Bush. Administration officials replied that the so-called enhanced interrogations had been stopped, while drone strikes continue.

Until Wednesday, the administration had refused to even officially acknowledge the existence of the documents, which have been reported about in the press. This week, NBC News obtained an unclassified, shorter “white paper” that detailed some of the legal analysis about killing a citizen and was apparently derived from the classified Awlaki memorandum. The paper said the United States could target a citizen if he was a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda involved in plots against the country and if his capture was not feasible.

Administration officials said Mr. Obama had decided to take the action, which they described as extraordinary, out of a desire to involve Congress in the development of the legal framework for targeting specific people to be killed in the war against Al Qaeda. Aides noted that Mr. Obama had made a pledge to do that during an appearance on “The Daily Show” last year.

“Today, as part of the president’s ongoing commitment to consult with Congress on national security matters, the president directed the Department of Justice to provide the Congressional Intelligence Committees access to classified Office of Legal Counsel advice related to the subject of the Department of Justice white paper,” said an administration official who requested anonymity to discuss the handling of classified material.

The official said members of the Intelligence Committees would now get “access” to the documents.

Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the president’s move “a small step in the right direction.” But he noted that the legal memo or memos were not being shared with the Armed Services Committees, which have jurisdiction over Pentagon strikes, or the Judiciary Committees, which oversee the Justice Department. It was not clear whether the release involved more than one memo.

The public should be permitted to see at least a redacted version of the relevant material, Mr. Anders said. “Everyone has a right to know when the government believes it can kill Americans and others,” he said.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to closely question Mr. Brennan about his role in the drone program during his hearing. Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who sits on the committee, said in a phone interview that he had been working in his office on questions for Mr. Brennan about 6:30 p.m. Wednesday when Mr. Obama called him and said that “effective immediately he was going to make the legal opinions available and he also hoped that there could be a broader conversation.”

Mr. Wyden has repeatedly called on the administration to release its legal memorandums laying out what the executive branch believes it has the power to do in national security matters, including the targeted killing of a citizen. Earlier on Wednesday, at a Democratic retreat in Annapolis, Md., he had hinted at a potential filibuster of Mr. Brennan’s nomination by vowing to “pull out all the stops to get the actual legal analysis, because without it, in effect, the administration is, in effect, practicing secret law.”

Mr. Wyden said that committee members would have immediate access to the material, and that there would be a process for other senators to read it eventually. It was not clear whether lawmakers’ legal aides would also be allowed to read it.

He said the administration’s decision to allow lawmakers “to finally see the legal opinions” was an “encouraging first step, and what I want to see is a bipartisan effort to build on it, particularly right now, when the lines are blurring between intelligence agencies and the military.”

The Congressional Intelligence Committees were created in the late 1970s to exercise oversight after a series of scandals at the spy agencies. The law requires that the committees be kept informed of intelligence activities. But most administrations withhold at least some legal opinions, treating them as confidential legal advice to the president and agency officials.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who leads the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she was pleased by the president’s action. “It is critical for the committee’s oversight function to fully understand the legal basis for all intelligence and counterterrorism operations,” she said.

The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union have filed lawsuits to force the release of the classified legal opinions on targeted killing, including the one now going to the Intelligence Committees. A judge rejected the claims, and the decision is on appeal.

The use of unmanned drones in the war against terrorism — a technology that has greatly facilitated the ability of the government to kill specific people far from any “hot” battlefield — has significantly escalated under Mr. Obama, who has used them to target Qaeda leadership. Mr. Obama has hailed his administration’s success in killing many in the terrorist organization’s senior ranks and undermining its ability to attack America.

But there have been persistent questions about how targets are chosen, especially when it comes to American citizens who the government says have taken up arms against their country as part of Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations.

Mr. Obama and administration officials have said they are pursuing a “legal framework” for those decisions, and some top officials have given speeches describing that legal framework. The unclassified white paper had been provided to members of Congress but had not been released publicly.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, was asked on Wednesday morning whether the president owed the public a “clearer explanation” about the standards that the government must meet before it uses the drones to kill Americans overseas. He called that an “excellent question” and said Mr. Obama took it seriously.

“He’s talking about this in a very deliberative and thoughtful way about how we move forward as a nation on these issues, because, obviously, these are questions that will be with us long after he is president and long after the people who are in the seats that they’re in now have left the scene,” Mr. Carney said.

Asked about the timing of those deliberations, he said he did not have any information to provide. “But I just wanted to convey to you the seriousness with which the president approaches these issues, and he respects the questions being asked,” Mr. Carney said.

Charlie Savage contributed reporting.

Voir enfin:

Tina Brown: Bush would have been impeached by now over Obama drone policy

Ed Morrissey

Hot air

February 11, 2013

This isn’t the first time this sentiment has been expressed, but it’s certainly a new venue for it. Daily Beast/Newsweek editor-in-chief Tina Brown follows up on Bill Maher’s observation that the Democratic reaction to Barack Obama’s drone use is somewhat hypocritical by claiming that Democrats would have impeached George W. Bush by now over it (via RCP):

BILL MAHER, HOST OF “REAL TIME” ON HBO: The Obama administration has been heavily targeting whistleblowers — true — and information activists. What can we do to hold the government accountable for this harsh crackdown?

TINA BROWN, NEWSWEEK: I mean, he’d be impeached by now for drones, if he was George W. Bush.

MAHER: Impeached? No.

BROWN: Yeah, don’t you think?

MAHER: Impeached, by who? Who would –

BROWN: I think if this was a Republican president, the outcry about drones would be far greater.

That outcry would have started with the national media, and not just about the drone attacks themselves. Bloomberg’s Noah Feldman writes today about a deeper problem with Obama’s drone usage and rationalization for it — the redefining of due process downward to mean essentially nothing:

Are U.S. enemies entitled to due process? Well, no — not if they are arrayed against the country on the battlefield. In war, you don’t try the enemy. You kill him, preferably before he kills you. And if some of the Japanese troops at Guadalcanal had held U.S. citizenship, it wouldn’t have suddenly given them due process rights. If Awlaki was an enemy fighting on the battlefield, he wouldn’t have deserved due process while the fight was on. Off it, he should legally be like any other U.S. citizen, innocent until proven guilty.Yet, despite claiming that the Awlaki killing was justified because he was an operational leader of al-Qaeda, and thus in some sense an enemy on the battlefield, the white paper still assumes that due process applies to U.S. citizens abroad who adhere to the enemy. On the surface, this sounds plausible and even generous: Why not consider the possibility that a U.S. citizen abroad has some rights against being killed out of the blue?

In fact, though, applying due process analysis to Awlaki produces a legal disaster. The problem is, once you consider due process, you have to give it some meaning — and the meaning you choose will cast a long shadow over what the term means everywhere else. …

The Obama administration’s apparent belief that due process can be satisfied in secret … inside the executive branch is arguably a greater departure from precedent. It is a travesty of the very notion of due process. And to borrow a phrase from Justice Robert Jackson, it will now lie about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any administration that needs it.

The white paper should have said that due process doesn’t apply on the battlefield. By instead making due process into a rubber stamp, the administration is ignoring precedent and subverting the idea of the rule of law. When is some law worse than none? When that law is so watered down that it loses the meaning it has had for 800 years.

Indeed. This is what comes from treating terrorism as crime rather than war. Bush was wise enough to understand the difference, and the legal implications that arise for all Americans when the two are confused.