The Gang of Four Doesn’t Have Access to the Kill List

Particularly given the questions bmaz raised the other day, I wanted to point to something Dutch Ruppersberger, the Democratic Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, had to say the other day. As part of the assurance he offered that the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki was legal, he admitted he doesn’t know whether Samir Khan, the other American citizen killed, was on the government’s kill list, because he doesn’t have access to the list.

Ruppersberger said al-Awlaki was on a special list of individuals that have attempted to attack the United States and are a severe threat to U.S. citizens.

“There’s a process that goes through the National Security Council, and then after that it goes to the president, and then the president then indicates that these individuals are on this list, and as a result of that process we followed it’s legal,” Ruppersberger said. “It’s legitimate, and we’re taking out someone who has attempted to attack us on numerous occasions, and he was on that list. It was pursuant to a process.”

Ruppersberger said he didn’t know if Khan was on the list.

“But Khan was a collateral damage issue here, and I don’t know because I don’t really have access to that list,” Ruppersberger said.

The Gang of Four (or possibly the full Eight, though only the Four have made comments about the killing) is presumably the only review anyone outside of the Executive Branch gives of its decisions to target people, including American citizens, for killing.

But if the Gang of Four doesn’t have access to the kill list, then the only opportunity they’ll have to review the government’s case that the target is indeed a legal target will come at a time when the government already has the person in their sights, presumably with a great deal of time sensitivity.

Yet another reason why this process is inadequate.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

25 Responses to The Gang of Four Doesn’t Have Access to the Kill List

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @MonaHol @EricMartin24 ...so be it. But the better the extent that any Clinton future can be brought left, the better. That's politics.
1mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @MonaHol @EricMartin24 Sanders may not have "experience" in FoPo, but at least what he has is not horrible. HRC will win, not Sanders...
2mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @MonaHol @EricMartin24 Well, I do not hate HRC. In fact, respect her in many ways. BUT, think she is effectively a status quo semi-neocon.
3mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 Also, ugh.
8mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 Me too. My wife constantly reminds me of that....
8mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 Maybe! but you have a young child. Mine is quickly headed to graduate school. Being pissed off at election helps me feel pain.
15mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 ...forces back then? Yes. The Obama hatred gestated out of that. And it was heinous. Still, her time then is not forgotten.
23mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 Sadly, I am so old as to have been through both eras. Do I understand+remember the forces, including rabid anti-Clinton...
25mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 Agreed.
26mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 Sure, but the Sanders vote, via legislative history looks quite different now. Not sure Clintons does.
27mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 Honestly, I am not sure where the real line is between her and Bill. But that was their strength, also legitimate question now
28mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EricMartin24 Do not disagree to a large extent, but she helped move BC's agenda. No 1st lady, even going back to Eleanor ever more central.
30mreplyretweetfavorite
October 2011
S M T W T F S
« Sep   Nov »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031