posted February 06, 2013 08:36 AM            

The paper, which was obtained by NBC News, lays out some of the government's justification for the assassination of Americans with drone strikes. The memo says that the US can order the killing of Americans if they are believed to be senior Al Qaeda members, even if they are not actively plotting attacks.

Carney was asked about the paper at the very beginning of Tuesday's briefing. He called the strikes "legal, ethical and wise," and said that they were constitutionally sound.

“The president takes his responsibilities very seriously,” Carney said. “And first and foremost that’s his responsibility to protect the United States." He added that the strikes were conducted “in a way that is fully consistent with the Constitution and all the applicable laws."

And that, essentially, is all he would say, despite a torrent of questions about the paper.

ABC's Jon Karl wondered why it was more humane to "drop a bomb" on someone than to torture them. He also asked about the ACLU's blistering criticism of the paper.

Carney kept referring to a speech given by John Brennan, the current nominee for CIA chief, and saying that the program was consistent with the Constitution.

"You're taking away a citizen's due process," CBS' Bill Plante said. "Doesn't it deserve a broader debate at a broader court hearing?"

"The administration has ... reviewed these issues," Carney said. "Shouldn't they be considered beyond the executive branch?" Plante pressed.

"Internally, they have been reviewed with great care," Carney said.

NBC's Kristen Welker asked how the administration's stated desire for transparency squared with the secrecy surrounding the program.

"We need to inform the public the process that we're undertaking and the reasoning behind it, and the white paper that was provided to some members of Congress ... is part of that process," Carney said.

"But it was leaked," Welker pointed out.

"What is the administration's argument against releasing some form of the actual memos?" another reporter asked.

"I think it was a news organization that Kristen works for has put it out online," Carney replied, saying that reporters should read it now that it was available.

"Well, we request that you put it out," the reporter replied. "It is out there online," Carney said.

"It's not the same thing!" the reporter exclaimed. "I take your point," Carney said.

posted February 06, 2013 10:37 AM            

Anyway, given the way the "law" is apparently written (not that even Congress is privvy to those details yet), these men could have been deemed domestic terrorists and murdered, end of story.

On a related note...

Watch how Jay Carney flubbed his way through explaining Anwar Al-Aulaki's assassination (3 minutes) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIo

^ Totally pathetic

Reporter: Does the administration not see at all how the President asserting that he has the right to kill an American citizen without due process, and that he's not even going to explain why he thinks he has that right, is troublesome to some people?

posted February 06, 2013 02:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Emoticon test:

---

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal