Kill list? What kill list?

[ravdin]

Glenn Greenwald (a former writer for Salon who leans to the left) wrote a scathing editorial on DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz's response to a question about whether Mitt Romney should be trusted with Obama's secret "kill" list should he win the election:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/20/wasserman-schultz-kill-list

Instead of defending the kill list, she asserted that she is ignorant of its existence and contemptuously acted like it's a joke to pretend it is real (the New York Times published a story about it not too long ago).

I have to say, the partisan hackery is stunning even by the very low standards that I've become used to. It's one thing for the DNC chair to excuse anything a president from her own party does, but is she really unaware of this policy? Is she merely stupid, or is she corrupt, or both?

 

[Brainster]

Can you imagine the howls of protest from some folks around here if George W. Bush had this policy? Kudos to Greenwald for being a staunch libertarian regardless of who's in the White House.

That said, I'm a pragmatist generally, and I don't think the kill list is such an obviously bad thing (although it is probably unconstitutional). And I did have to wince at this part:

She makes clear that she has never heard of it and then contemptuously treats Rudkowski like he is some sort of frivolous joke for thinking that it is real:

Of course, Rudkowski is some sort of frivolous joke; he's an Alex Jones disciple who started up We Are Change, a 9-11 Truther/Patriot organization, but at one point was kicked out when it was learned he had embezzled funds from the group to pay for his college tuition.

 

[Puppycow]

Not able to watch the video atm, but I wonder if she was clear on what he was referring to.

The standard response should probably be "No comment" given that it is supposed to be a classified program. It's a secret like Israel's nuclear weapons are a secret. It's well known that Israel has nuclear weapons, but no Israeli official has ever confirmed that this is true. I could see them answering questions about Israel's nuclear weapons by saying "Nuclear weapons? What nuclear weapons?" but it would probably be better just to respond "No comment."

(IOW, I don't believe she is ignorant of the program, just that she's blowing the question off in a somewhat rude manner.)

 

[Foolmewunz]

Not able to watch the video atm, but I wonder if she was clear on what he was referring to.

The standard response should probably be "No comment" given that it is supposed to be a classified program. It's a secret like Israel's nuclear weapons are a secret. It's well known that Israel has nuclear weapons, but no Israeli official has ever confirmed that this is true. I could see them answering questions about Israel's nuclear weapons by saying "Nuclear weapons? What nuclear weapons?" but it would probably be better just to respond "No comment."

(IOW, I don't believe she is ignorant of the program, just that she's blowing the question off in a somewhat rude manner.)

Oh, she understood the question. She clearly says it doesn't exist and that the questioner/question isn't serious but some kind of joke.

I think it's mind-boggling yet quite possible that she actually doesn't know about it. Wasserman Schulz is a Democratic hack. She's an embarrassment, time and again. If I was Barack Obama, I'd sure as hell not let her in on any DoD or DoS briefings, and most assuredly not on discussions of who to target for the drones or raids.

While it's difficult to imagine someone in her position at the DNC not being on top of this rather well-known story, she's never exhibited anything more than party loyalty and a willingness to pull facts out of her butt. Sarah Palin didn't read a single periodical, either. Why isn't it possible for a high-ranking Dem to be completely uninformed?

 

[Dancing David]

The standard response should probably be "No comment" given that it is supposed to be a classified program. I

This

 

[WildCat]

The standard response should probably be "No comment" given that it is supposed to be a classified program.

That would be true if she was s government or administration official, but she's not.

 

[WildCat]

If I was Barack Obama, I'd sure as hell not let her in on any DoD or DoS briefings, and most assuredly not on discussions of who to target for the drones or raids.

I really hope party hacks aren't involved in this in any way, shape, or form. Unless she's employed by the White House or some government agency on a need to know basis she shouldn't have anything at all to do with any such briefings.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I really hope party hacks aren't involved in this in any way, shape, or form. Unless she's employed by the White House or some government agency on a need to know basis she shouldn't have anything at all to do with any such briefings.

Yeah, I was in a rush. What I was trying to get to is that someone at her level in Congress, regardless of her position in the party, would not and should not be involved in this level of conversation. Add that to her propensity for shooting her mouth off before her brain is in gear and I do not find it impossible to believe she actually has no knowledge of the program.

 

[Dan O.]

Is it being implied that there were never US forces involved in assassinations before the current administration?

A quick search unveild:

September 14, 2001: By enacting Senate Joint Resolution 23, Congress granted President George W. Bush the power to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against "persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."​

Did George have a kill list or was that not in the cards?

 

[Tricky]

Is it being implied that there were never US forces involved in assassinations before the current administration?

A quick search unveild:

September 14, 2001: By enacting Senate Joint Resolution 23, Congress granted President George W. Bush the power to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against "persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
​

Did George have a kill list or was that not in the cards?

Nyuk nyuk.

 

[ravdin]

Of course, Rudkowski is some sort of frivolous joke; he's an Alex Jones disciple who started up We Are Change, a 9-11 Truther/Patriot organization, but at one point was kicked out when it was learned he had embezzled funds from the group to pay for his college tuition.

Ha! I didn't know that. I wonder if DWS did.

Is it being implied that there were never US forces involved in assassinations before the current administration?

A quick search unveild:

September 14, 2001: By enacting Senate Joint Resolution 23, Congress granted President George W. Bush the power to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against "persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."​

Did George have a kill list or was that not in the cards?

No one's implied that this did not happen under George Bush's administration. The implication is that this policy will continue if Mitt Romney is elected- and the question asked is whether the current president's supporters would trust him with the power to summarily execute those he deems to be terrorists, including US citizens.

 

[Dan O.]

No one's implied that this did not happen under George Bush's administration. The implication is that this policy will continue if Mitt Romney is elected- and the question asked is whether the current president's supporters would trust him with the power to summarily execute those he deems to be terrorists, including US citizens.

The implication in the label is that Obama somehow has assembled a personal "kill list". Zero evidence has been presented to support that. What has been presented is that the president is personally reviewing the individual cases presented to him. Would you feel better if this duty were delegated? Should it be handled by a court? What court has the jurisdiction and security clearance? Who's to say that there isn't already a court reviewing these cases? Still, a president that takes this duty upon himself would get the last review and veto. Would you want to take that away?

 

[ravdin]

The implication in the label is that Obama somehow has assembled a personal "kill list". Zero evidence has been presented to support that. What has been presented is that the president is personally reviewing the individual cases presented to him. Would you feel better if this duty were delegated? Should it be handled by a court? What court has the jurisdiction and security clearance? Who's to say that there isn't already a court reviewing these cases? Still, a president that takes this duty upon himself would get the last review and veto. Would you want to take that away?

Well, he did personally assemble a kill list. Saying that he's merely approving names presented to him are weasel words. And yes, I would take this power away from Obama if I could. Perhaps he's using the kill list in the wisest possible way. My argument is that even if I can trust this president to do that, I don't necessarily trust his successors.

 

[Dan O.]

Well, he did personally assemble a kill list. Saying that he's merely approving names presented to him are weasel words. And yes, I would take this power away from Obama if I could. Perhaps he's using the kill list in the wisest possible way. My argument is that even if I can trust this president to do that, I don't necessarily trust his successors.

If you don't provide supporting documentation for your claims I will simply assume you are lying or misinformed. The artlcle you referenced was clear: "how he "insist on approving every new name on an expanding 'kill list'". that the president's position is that of blocking nomes from being added to the list and not initiating the process of adding a name.

 

[ravdin]

If you don't provide supporting documentation for your claims I will simply assume you are lying or misinformed. The artlcle you referenced was clear: "how he "insist on approving every new name on an expanding 'kill list'". that the president's position is that of blocking nomes from being added to the list and not initiating the process of adding a name.

Are you suggesting that the president isn't actually responsible for the names on the list? What's the difference if his advisers make the nominations?

By your logic, he's not responsible for the resulting drone strikes either since someone else is carrying out his orders.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Are you suggesting that the president isn't actually responsible for the names on the list? What's the difference if his advisers make the nominations?

By your logic, he's not responsible for the resulting drone strikes either since someone else is carrying out his orders.

This is truly convoluted logic. His response was to your statement immediately below(and which you made before the above post). Note the bolded part.

Well, he did personally assemble a kill list. Saying that he's merely approving names presented to him are weasel words. And yes, I would take this power away from Obama if I could. Perhaps he's using the kill list in the wisest possible way. My argument is that even if I can trust this president to do that, I don't necessarily trust his successors.

You were being asked to support that statement, and he provided text that tore it down. So do you have anything to support your contention that He Personally Assembled a Kill List. Your response to his evidence is just a shifting of the goal posts. If you wish to say that you personally consider being the ultimate approver or denier of the names on the list is the same as being the one who makes the list, that's your prerogative, but it's a rather dubious claim in the light of the available evidence.

I'm personally not comfortable with the existence of a Kill List at all, but that's my namby pamby liberal anti-war streak. I have to give Obama a grudging admiration (and would give the same to Dubya is he took the same stance) for putting himself on the hot seat. There's no better example of "the buck stops here". Everybody involved gets plausible deniability except Obama. "Well, we just put the names forth. The POTUS made the ultimate call." I guess if you want to be President, you need to man up on the big issues.

 

[ravdin]

You were being asked to support that statement, and he provided text that tore it down. So do you have anything to support your contention that He Personally Assembled a Kill List. Your response to his evidence is just a shifting of the goal posts. If you wish to say that you personally consider being the ultimate approver or denier of the names on the list is the same as being the one who makes the list, that's your prerogative, but it's a rather dubious claim in the light of the available evidence.

I'm personally not comfortable with the existence of a Kill List at all, but that's my namby pamby liberal anti-war streak. I have to give Obama a grudging admiration (and would give the same to Dubya is he took the same stance) for putting himself on the hot seat. There's no better example of "the buck stops here". Everybody involved gets plausible deniability except Obama. "Well, we just put the names forth. The POTUS made the ultimate call." I guess if you want to be President, you need to man up on the big issues.

The list (and I will cite again the original NYT article) is assembled by a team, and the president is the leader of that team. You might have a point if the list came from a different branch of government (such as Congress) who doesn't answer to the president. However, it's the president's directive to assemble this list, and you must be joking if you are suggesting that it's not his personal responsibility.

I'll also repeat that it's perfectly reasonable to defend the policy. I just have a problem with denying its existence (my grumble in the OP was about one of Obama's flunkies doing just that), or trying to shift responsibility away from the president. I highlighted your last sentence above for emphasis because I completely agree.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The list (and I will cite again the original NYT article) is assembled by a team, and the president is the leader of that team. You might have a point if the list came from a different branch of government (such as Congress) who doesn't answer to the president. However, it's the president's directive to assemble this list, and you must be joking if you are suggesting that it's not his personal responsibility.

I'll also repeat that it's perfectly reasonable to defend the policy. I just have a problem with denying its existence (my grumble in the OP was about one of Obama's flunkies doing just that), or trying to shift responsibility away from the president. I highlighted your last sentence above for emphasis because I completely agree.

I suppose there's some reason that you feel you need to spin this, but it's more like spinning your wheels, frankly.

You said he put together the list. He did not. You didn't say he had a team assemble a list and thus "has a list". You didn't say he approved of the recommendations (or denied them) thus making him "responsible for the list". You said that he was the one to put it together. He did not.

And now you're adding a patently untrue claim, that I (must be joking if) I claim that it's not his responsibility. I distinctly said that I actually find it begrudgingly admirable that he's taking the "the buck stops here" responsibility. Who else should do so? It's a committee or group that reports to him, he does check the list and evidently he either confirms or denies the big red targets on their backs. I don't disagree with any of that and I think that him doing that confirming is clearly accepting the responsibility.

I do not understand this crying need in Politics threads to spin everything to avoid admitting to a basic and minor error. We probably agree on the upshot of this list and its assemblage, regardless of our individual politics. I just stand by a stricter interpretation of "he did personally assemble".

 

[Ziggurat]

More fun with kill lists:

 

[dc1971]

Can you imagine the howls of protest from some folks around here if George W. Bush had this policy?

Howls, eh?