[Peace-discuss] No U.S. Drone Strikes in Mali Without Congressional Approval

Thu Jan 17 03:58:05 UTC 2013

The discussion became silly when you brought up impeachment, Carl. That's
my point. I didn't make it any more silly than you already made it. I made
a practical political demand: try to block the drone war from being
extended to Mali. You changed the subject to silliness.

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:

> You're getting silly, Bob.
>
> Calling on Congress to exercise the responsibilities assigned to it by the
> Constitution - impeaching our criminous chief magistrate - would seen
> easier than, say, calling on Congress expressly to go against the
> Constitution, e.g., by abolishing slavery. (The current film, introduced by
> another criminous executive at an awards show last week, draws the parallel
> of then and now.) The choices are up to us.
>
> Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
> Like a Colossus, and we petty men
> Walk under his huge legs and peep about
> To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
> Men at some time are masters of their fates:
> The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars - nor in our foundational law
> -
> But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
>
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 8:47 PM, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
> wrote:
>
> Oh, but the Constitution *does* provide for me to receive a million
> dollars. Congress can vote to give me a million dollars anytime it wants,
> just as it can vote to impeach the President anytime it wants. The two
> things are about equally likely to happen, so if I'm going to advocate for
> things that have no chance of happening, I might as well advocate for the
> one that would give me greater personal enjoyment.
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:
>
>> The Constitution doesn't provide for your receiving a million dollars.
>>
>> It does provide for the impeachment and removal from office of chief
>> executives guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, as Obama obviously is.
>>
>> It's wrong to surrender to those congressional representatives who refuse
>> to follow the law, instead of opposing them.
>>
>>
>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Why not demand that Congress give me a trillion dollars? I mean, as long
>> as we're stipulating that objective reality is unimportant as a guide to
>> action.
>>
>> Not extending the drone war to Mali is a plausible ask. It's a crime that
>> hasn't been committed yet. Preventing it is a winnable fight.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Why not demand Congress impeach Obama for violating the Constitution &
>>> international law, & murder?
>>>
>>> That would do a s much good, and perhaps more.
>>>
>>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:28 PM, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Just Foreign Policy <info at justforeignpolicy.org>
>>> Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:09 PM
>>> Subject: No U.S. Drone Strikes in Mali Without Congressional Approval
>>> To: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>>
>>>
>>>   [image: Just Foreign Policy]<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=L1xLKMLaHhV3ZLIuqi0s2TJhRzAi1y7H>
>>>
>>> Dear Robert,
>>>
>>> *Tell Congress to insist the Administration obtain explicit
>>> Congressional authorization before conducting drone strikes in Mali.
>>> *
>>> Take Action<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=P77yi6TJfW6O4Q46QjfOCtzaJIMQCl9N>
>>>
>>> France has undertaken a major military campaign in Mali. *U.S.
>>> officials are talking about the possibility of supporting the French
>>> military campaign with U.S. drone strikes.*
>>>
>>> Congress hasn't authorized US military intervention in Mali. In
>>> particular, *Congress hasn't authorized U.S. drone strikes in Mali.*
>>>
>>> *Urge your Representative and Senators to publicly insist that the
>>> Administration obtain explicit Congressional authorization before
>>> conducting drone strikes in Mali.*
>>>
>>> *http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/mali-drones<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=eUlT3lInUmnnmhE8x1tSatzaJIMQCl9N>
>>> *
>>>
>>> The *Washington Post* reports: [1]
>>>
>>> *[A senior U.S.] official said contingency plans for the use of armed
>>> drones were already in place and are being reevaluated.*
>>>
>>> Without explicit Congressional authorization, the only U.S. legal
>>> authority the Administration could claim for conducting drone strikes in
>>> Mali is the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed after
>>> the September 11 attacks. This is the legal authority the Administration
>>> has invoked for conducting drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
>>> The invocation of the 2001 AUMF to justify drone strikes in Pakistan,
>>> Yemen, and Somalia is already very controversial. The invocation of the
>>> 2001 AUMF to justify drone strikes in Mali should be even more
>>> controversial.
>>>
>>> Indeed, on November 1, the *Washington Post* editorial board, which
>>> supports the drone strike policy overall, and believes that US drone
>>> strikes in Pakistan and Yemen are legal overall, wrote: [2]
>>>
>>> The *Post*’s reporting suggests that the administration is …
>>> contemplating the use of drones in more countries where jihadist forces are
>>> active, including Libya and Mali. This raises new legal and political
>>> quandaries. *The further — in geography, time and organizational
>>> connection — that the drone war advances from the original al-Qaeda target
>>> in Afghanistan, the less validity it has under the 2001 congressional
>>> authorization … most of the world is unlikely to accept an argument that
>>> the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks justify drone strikes more than a decade later
>>> in Northern Africa.*
>>>
>>> The *Washington Post* now notes that U.S. support for France's military
>>> campaign could "*test U.S. legal boundaries*"; that direct U.S.
>>> military aid to Mali is "*forbidden under U.S. law because the weak
>>> rump government there seized power in a coup*"; and that some fighters
>>> who may be targeted by France are "*longtime foes of the Malian
>>> government and pose no direct threat to U.S. interests*" [3] - thus,
>>> they have nothing to do with the September 11 attack and therefore the 2001
>>> AUMF can't be invoked to justify attacking them.
>>>
>>> If the Administration conducts drone strikes in Mali without new
>>> Congressional authorization, it would be a major setback both for efforts
>>> to bring accountability and transparency to the drone strike program and to
>>> efforts to protect Congressional authority to decide when the United States
>>> goes to war. We have a responsibility to try to draw a line in the sand in
>>> front of expansion of the drone war to Mali.
>>>
>>> *Urge your Representative and Senators to speak up.*
>>>
>>> *http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/mali-drones<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=3FUFdlSISAzPzlByY9Mxk9zaJIMQCl9N>
>>> *
>>>
>>> Thank you for all you do to help bring about a more just foreign policy,
>>>
>>> Robert Naiman, Chelsea Mozen, Sarah Burns and Megan Iorio
>>> Just Foreign Policy
>>>
>>> *Please support our work. Donate for a Just Foreign Policy.*
>>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=SwZpe5QJZe61uFyQIo%2FePNzaJIMQCl9N>
>>>
>>> References:
>>>
>>> 1. "U.S. weighs military support for France’s campaign against Mali
>>> militants," Anne Gearan, Karen DeYoung and Craig Whitlock, Washington Post,
>>> January 15, 2013
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-weighs-military-support-for-frances-campaign-against-mali-militants/2013/01/15/a071db40-5f4d-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=xq6v%2FTBuoGpYXBI8S85%2F7tzaJIMQCl9N>
>>> 2. "Pulling the U.S. drone war out of the shadows," Editorial,
>>> Washington Post, November 1, 2012,
>>> http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-01/opinions/35503416_1_drone-attacks-drone-strikes-qaeda<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=GHnTdIEtmFf2xzui1SY%2FmDJhRzAi1y7H>
>>> 3. "U.S. weighs military support for France’s campaign against Mali
>>> militants," Anne Gearan, Karen DeYoung and Craig Whitlock, Washington Post,
>>> January 15, 2013
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-weighs-military-support-for-frances-campaign-against-mali-militants/2013/01/15/a071db40-5f4d-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=aSQHJvMm%2F78pndv9j9ngmtzaJIMQCl9N>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  © 2013 Just Foreign Policy
>>>
>>> Click here to unsubscribe<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=bDRtcPDYPXEHV57q9lD8MTJhRzAi1y7H>
>>>  [image: empowered by Salsa] <http://www.salsalabs.com/?email>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Robert Naiman
>>> Policy Director
>>> Just Foreign Policy
>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Robert Naiman
>> Policy Director
>> Just Foreign Policy
>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>
>
>

-- 
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130116/2b2bbb1b/attachment.html>