Dianne Feinstein Agrees with Obama: Public Can’t Know Targeted Killing Legal Justification

At the end of a useful Steve Coll piece on the Constitutional danger of the Administration’s unilateral decisions to kill American citizens, he argues that Congress has the ability to force the Administration to release the process by which it executes Americans with no due process publicly.

None of Obama’s legal advisers has testified similarly about what secret system and classified legal memos may exist for judging, in the case of an American citizen targeted overseas, whether and why a capture attempt may be feasible. Congress has the power to force such statements onto the public record. It must try; it is obvious by now that the Obama Administration will not volunteer them. Is “kill or capture” a policy, or are the words just a screen for politically convenient targeted killings?

As I laid out the other day, Congress has tried to ask nicely for the memos on over 10 occasions, only to be blown off by the Administration.

That’s why Dianne Feinstein’s thus far successful effort to undercut John Cornyn’s effort to mandate release of the memos is so dangerous. John Cornyn’s amendment would mandate release to six oversight committees (those overseeing Intelligence, Judiciary, and Armed Services) within a month. DiFi’s bill would require release of all intelligence related memos (which is good), but only to the Intelligence Committees, and with loopholes  that would permit the Administration to withhold a slew of their legal authorities. And any release could be delayed 6 months beyond the passage of the bill (so, if Mitt were to win, beyond the end of the Obama Administration).

There is widespread bipartisan support for releasing a real explanation of this to the public, now. Cornyn’s amendment would be an important half measure, requiring release of the Awlaki kill memo at least to the members of Congress purportedly ensuring government activities remain constitutional. And yet DiFi’s efforts undercut even that half measure.

Update: My original title, which I’ve resigned to the dustbin of over-long novels, stunk. Thankfully, Kade Ellis gave me a better one.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

5 Responses to Dianne Feinstein Agrees with Obama: Public Can’t Know Targeted Killing Legal Justification

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel Especially true since bin Laden party investigation said top DOD officials couldn't get in trouble. https://t.co/pt9oDPtPeU
11mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Important point in @PGEddington piece on politicization on ISIL intel: DOD IG can't be trusted on investigation. https://t.co/t1zHUgr1Ro
12mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @RMFifthCircuit Less fill and more law safer, but I bet he lays it out with plenty of fill to explain to the public what he is doing.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @bnlfan_thunder @BenVolin Different judges do it differently. Most common, by my experience, is both parties, then breakouts, then together.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @bnlfan_thunder @BenVolin ABSOLUTELY!
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @bnlfan_thunder @BenVolin I am sure you are well intentioned, but you are wrong. FWIW, I do this for a living, and have for a long time.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @ProFootballTalk: Mike Shanahan declares Kirk Cousins a “top 10 quarterback,” and obviously just enjoys watching the world burn http://t…
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @bnlfan_thunder @BenVolin Uh, this is an arbitration, NOT a mediation. The semantics matter. Saying parties never together in arbs is silly.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz .@BenVolin Sure they can. Its whatever+however court decides to conduct it. But parties can be+often are, in the same room. Just wasn't here
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @RMFifthCircuit: The whole rapid fire coverage of Deflategate impossible under old system... Just musing. https://t.co/h9d49pc9CL
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @WerlySportsLaw @RMFifthCircuit @Prof_Holland @WALLACHLEGAL @IanPGunn @amilst44 We still have very limited/no crim efile. Civil presumptive
2hreplyretweetfavorite
August 2012
S M T W T F S
« Jul   Sep »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031