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

Thu Jan 17 13:28:13 UTC 2013

Well,

How " silly " was attempting to impeach Clinton for a blow job ?

As absurd as that was it was still attempted.
In this case with Obama, it is constitutionally justified.

David J.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Robert Naiman 
To: Carl G. Estabrook 
Cc: Peace-discuss List 
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] No U.S. Drone Strikes in Mali Without Congressional Approval

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

            Dear Robert,

            Tell Congress to insist the Administration obtain explicit Congressional authorization before conducting drone strikes in Mali.

            Take Action

            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

            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

            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

            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
            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
            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

            © 2013 Just Foreign Policy
            Click here to unsubscribe

            -- 
            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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130117/b3411fa0/attachment-0001.html>