The United States has reportedly killed 4,700 people in "war on terror" operations outside of declared war zones. On Wednesday, the European Parliament heard a special briefing on the US kill programs from the ACLU's Hina Shamsi and the UN's special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Ben Emmerson. Following the briefing, the parliamentarians issued a statement calling into question the legality (and morality) of US strikes. The United States cannot hide its legal justification for these operations from the world any longer .
[...]
The members announced that the European Parliament will hold hearings next month to look further into the US program.
[...]
On Wednesday, Attorney General Holder told the Senate judiciary committee that we would "hear from the president in a relatively short period of time" about how the government's kill programs are done "reluctantly", and "in conformity with international law, with domestic law, and with our values as of the American people".
Kade Crockford – UK Guardian
That should satisfy everyone.
Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat, Vermont), who ultimately opposed confirming Brennan, explained his vote:
"
The chairs of both the House and Senate judiciary committees have said they may subpoena the Department of Justice to get them. Wednesday, Senator Leahy told Holder: "I realize the decision is not entirely in your hands, but [the issue] may be brought to a head with a subpoena from this office, from this committee."
[...]
Congressman Bob Goodlatte (Republican, Virginia), chair of the House judiciary committee, has said there is "bipartisan interest" in subpoenaing the executive branch to force it to divulge not only the "targeted" killing memos, but also those that describe the broader powers to kill in "signature strikes".
In a letter to the president (pdf) dated 8 February 2013, he and five colleagues wrote:
[...]
The last couple of weeks have been a wake-up call for the United States, and the whole world, on the breathtakingly broad lethal authorities that the Obama administration appears to claim. At the same time, the incredible efforts required to get the Obama administration to disclose, even just to Congress, any of its legal claims should make clear that getting the president to come clean on his legal justifications will require even greater energy and tenacity.
UK Guardian
I have worked with John Brennan, and I respect his record, his experience, and his dedication to public service. But the administration has stonewalled me and the judiciary committee for too long on a reasonable request to review the legal justification for the use of drones in the targeted killing of American citizens. The administration made the relevant OLC memorandum available to the Senate select committee on intelligence in order to advance this nomination. I expect the judiciary committee, which has oversight of the Office of Legal Counsel, to be afforded the same access. For that reason, I reluctantly opposed Mr Brennan's nomination."[...]
The chairs of both the House and Senate judiciary committees have said they may subpoena the Department of Justice to get them. Wednesday, Senator Leahy told Holder: "I realize the decision is not entirely in your hands, but [the issue] may be brought to a head with a subpoena from this office, from this committee."
[...]
Congressman Bob Goodlatte (Republican, Virginia), chair of the House judiciary committee, has said there is "bipartisan interest" in subpoenaing the executive branch to force it to divulge not only the "targeted" killing memos, but also those that describe the broader powers to kill in "signature strikes".
In a letter to the president (pdf) dated 8 February 2013, he and five colleagues wrote:
"We are disappointed that three prior requests to review these memoranda by members of the committee have gone unanswered. We hope that you will affirm your commitment to transparency and openness by accommodating our request to review these documents. We respectfully request that you direct the Justice Department to provide the requested documents to the committee by close of business on Tuesday, 12 February 2013."The administration did not respond.
[...]
The last couple of weeks have been a wake-up call for the United States, and the whole world, on the breathtakingly broad lethal authorities that the Obama administration appears to claim. At the same time, the incredible efforts required to get the Obama administration to disclose, even just to Congress, any of its legal claims should make clear that getting the president to come clean on his legal justifications will require even greater energy and tenacity.
UK Guardian
I'd like to see the administration's definition of “transparency” since that was an Obama campaign promise. I don't think it's going to be what we think it means.
No comments:
Post a Comment