Legal Jargon on the Targeted Killing of US Citizens Abroad

Not the most eye catching or inventive of post titles, but what are you going to do? NBC news published a Department of Justice memo on the killing of US citizens who are in leadership roles in Al Qa'ida (sic) and associated groups. The memo does contain some limitations on when such an act can take place; the most limiting of which is the fact that seemingly only high ranking members of Al Qa'ida actively engaged in the planning of imminent terrorist attacks against the United States of America. The memo, however, uses a rather tortured (definitely no pun intended) explanation on the definition of imminent. Essentially, because Al Qa'ida can attack at any moment, if you qualify as an operation leader engaged in the planning of attacks then it is assumed that the attacks you are planning are imminent. Further, if you have renounced your ways as an operational leader actively planning terrorist attacks against the United States which will automatically assumed to be imminent, you better do so publicly or the U.S. government will continue to consider you as a threat that can be Constitutionally eliminated without evidence to the contrary.

The memo disposed of the 4th and 5th Amendment concerns with balancing the 4th Amendment intrusion v. the reasonableness of the government action and a Matthews v. Eldridge balancing, where the required due process is determined by weighing the importance of the interest at stake and the benefits of additional safeguards through due process against the government's interest, respectively. The memo quickly argues for the government's side of the scale on the balance because of the interest in preventing an "imminent" terrorist attack that could lead to the loss of many American lives. The ole take out one to save many logic. I have no problems with such drone attacks against citizens who decide to join Al Qa'ida and are involved in the planning of attacks, but the legal reasoning seems to be a bit iffy. The definition of imminent certainly seems overly broad and although the government interest in both the 4th and 5th Amendment balances is incredibly strong, so is the concern in the intrusion brought by the loss of life and the interest in staying alive that is at stake. The Due Process argument seems particularly weak as one could easily see a situation where additional due process considerations, such as a private hearing with a military judge in a FISA Court type setting, could be beneficial in making sure everything is kosher.

Lastly, because it is only addressed in passing, determinations on the acceptable amount of collateral damage (i.e., deaths of civilians near the target) are still opaque and this is, of course, also worrisome. While few have too many issues with how the targeted drone strikes have been used so far when it comes to American citizens, the general opacity with how these decisions will be made in the future (since the DoJ deems such actions legal) is disconcerting in general. Considering the last administration's refusal to re-evaluate any of it's actions, including the disastrous war in Iraq and the culture of torture that stained this country, there is no telling how a future administration would use the green light this memo presents. The decisions of who is a proper target for a strike, what an acceptable amount of collateral damage is (Homeland anyone?) and what is considered imminent will all be concentrated amongst a limited amount of people set in an insular group with little threat of second guessing by any other authorities. Recent history suggests that such a setting can lead to disaster. I understand the DoJ's memo and hope for the best, but I will hardly be surprised by the worst if and when it occurs in the future.

IMAGE: scrapetv.com via Google Images

The Curious Case of Kobe the Facilitator

There are few things more hilarious to me in the world of sports than analysts and commentators heaping praise on a player/coach/owner/general sports figure for doing something they should have been doing for a long, long time. The most recent case, these past few days, has been the overabundance of acclaim that Kobe "Bean Black Mamba (self-given TM)" Bryant has been given for actually dropping some dimes and acting like a facilitator in the Lakers current 3 game winning streak.

Kobe is an all time great, but passing has never really been his forte. Unlike the innumerable horde of KobeKoolaide (trademark pending) drinkers, I always thought this to be a flaw in his game and, especially when he was younger, indicative of a selfish, I will get my numbers regardless, mindset. I applaud the fact that he is now looking to get his team more involved and is shooting less attempts per game, but why are people acting like this is some great revelation that he should be praised for. One would think that Kobe would have been taught in his second grade rec league that a double or triple team means that there is at least one player wide open and the ball should be passed to such an unmarked man. The math here is not all that hard. When Kobe has less than 20 shot attempts in a game, the Lakers tend to win and that has been the trend in the last 3 games where Kobe has had over 10 assists and less than 15 field goal attempts in each. This trend, however, has been present for the entire season. Of the 20 Lakers wins, 14 have come when he has shot less than 20 times per game (70% of their wins) and only 6 have come when he has attempted 20+ field goals. Considering the starting depth of their team with Steve Nash, Pau Gasol and Dwight Howard, this is not at all surprising. Kobe should absolutely not be shooting over 20 attempts a game with all the other all-star caliber players requiring touches.

While it's great that Kobe is coming around to a team first mentality, and considering the Lakers current sub-.500 record, perhaps analysts should probably be screaming "FINALLY" rather than throwing acclaim at the new and improved Facilitator Model Kobe.


IMAGE: via BleacherReport.com

Crowdfunding: Rise of the Talent

Andrew Sullivan, former blogger for The Atlantic who now uses The Daily Beast over at Newsweek as a platform, recently announced a new, and independent, business model where he will go off on his own (with his team), spurn advertising and request that his somewhat abnormally loyal readers donate to the effort subscribe. As Sully himself pointed out, Jay Rosen has an insightful and well-written take on the move. Rosen suggests:

In other words, core users have been “giving” to Sullivan’s site for years. They have been giving their time, their persistent attention, their loyalty (meaning: a bond strong enough to withstand the moments when Sullivan offends the user with his opinions and unruly emotions) and such other contributions as can be seen only by sifting though the inbox. 

I think that he is correct in that assertion and that the actual $20 yearly subscriptions only make that investment explicit. Further, investment seems like the right word here. As Sullivan has stated on his site, one could still visit the site and will not trigger the meter used for the non-subscribed if they do not click the "Read On" expansion link for articles. Thus the money pouring in seems more analogous to a media kick starter where those subscribing probably now feel a sense of ownership of the blog. Or, more accurately, are now validating the sense of ownership they have felt all along (although Sully mainly sidesteps sports, think of the fan ownership of the Green Bay Packers).

Though, as some have already rightly pointed out, I think the Louis CK comparison is closest to the mark. Both men have a tremendous fan base who appreciate and, more importantly, respect what they are trying to do in throwing of the yolk of their respective traditional media models. Louis CK's forays have already been wildly successful and, from the initial 1/3rd of a million subscriptions received in the first day, it appears that Sullivan and the Dish crew will be too. 

At least, I sure hope so. Louis CK has already got some of my money and Sully will be seeing his taste very shortly as well. If you truly appreciate independent commentary, you should think about investing on the Sully ground floor too.


IMAGE: TheDailyBeast via Google Images

Mr. President, Close. Down. That. Prison...

The Government Accountability Office ("GAO") found that the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba can be safely closed and the remaining prisoners transferred to prisons on US soil with no ill effects. This should be done immediately. First off, this was a promise made by President Obama before his FIRST term in office, yet we are still discussing it (barely) four years later. One of the prime reasons for using Guantanamo was for security reasons and as a means to keep these enemy combatants from having the right to habeas corpus. With the GAO largely dismissing the security concerns and those combatants left are mostly being held without charges, why is it still open?

With everyone currently raving about Lincoln, rightfully so having seen it myself, there is an applicable part of the movie where President Lincoln is discussing with his cabinet the various things he has done because he felt them necessary and right despite the possibility of the actions being unconstitutional. He was mainly referring to the Emancipation Proclamation but of equal import was his suspension of habeas corpus using his powers as a war time President. These powers were again evoked, with a nod towards President Lincoln and the exigencies required by war, after the attacks of September 11th. The difference between the two, however, is that unlike the Civil War, the Authorization for Use of Military Force that followed the 9/11 attacks and preceded the official War on Terror is very open ended. Thus, the suspension of habeas corpus for those at Guantanamo Bay, and many previously at Guantanamo have been found to have done nothing related to terrorist activity but were simply picked up during the fog of war, remains open ended.

The point of that previous paragraph's aside being, President Obama did not open Guantanamo for that use and has no skin in the game. His promise to close the prison is now almost half a decade old and the GAO has stated that it is more than plausible to safely close it and transfer the prisoners to the continental U.S. So, does President Obama recognize the moral hazards of making decisions that may exist in the gray area where the President's war powers and the unconstitutionality meet like President Lincoln did? And, if so, why is the prison still open at the same time the President is winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Basically, Mr. President, please do as you promised and close down that prison.


IMAGE: Wikipedia.com

The Day the NY Jets Crashed

The day they got clowned by Harry Reid. Here we have just another one of many examples (See Fireman Ed's retirement due to harassment by fellow Jet "fans," anything related to Tebow or manufactured QB controversy, etc.) that has Jets fans hoping for a Mayan Apocalypse before the year is out. Now Harry Reid used to box so I am going to go ahead and assume that he's not a "let us got to the match of football" type Mormon like Mitt Romney, but he still kind of looks like an aged Harry Potter pwning the entire Jets fan base. It is truly embarrassing. The most astonishing part of this Jets season, however, is that they are actually in contention for a Wild Card spot and, due to their cream puff of a remaining schedule, they could win out and crash land (PUNS!) into the playoffs. Considering that the Jets played almost the entire year without their best offensive and defensive players, that would be an accomplishment and very quiet, almost whispered, testimonial to Rex Ryan's abilities as coach, despite all the distractions, and hopefully keeps him at the helm.

Not that anyone should be holding out hope for miracles in the future. The Jets, thanks to the incompetent mismanagement by Tannenbaum and Johnson (I don't care what he says, Woody was definitely instrumental in pushing the Tebow trade), have a hole-y (PUNS!) mess of a roster. Although the offensive line is generally good, there are almost no weapons on offense outside of Holmes. Keller has fallen off despite showing promise last year, a #2 receiver hasn't revealed himself yet, and Shonn Greene has proven himself to be a bust. Bilal Powell has shown some ability this year but he is a small upgrade, if anything, over Greene. Concrete Hands McKnight has yet to shown anything to open up hope that he could be an effective back and, Sparano be damned, the Jets still have not figured out how to use Tebow in the Wildcat. The defensive side, though still looking good this year, is old and much of the Jets' scheme revolves around a healthy Revis. To be fair, Cromartie did a good job in his absence and Sexy Rexy and his lieutenants did a good job of adjusting the defensive scheme so that the D was still effective.

Unless some changes are made, and I do not even know if the front office is competent to make them, the Jets may squeak into the playoffs this year but will most likely remain grounded next. Here's to hoping, I am wrong.


IMAGE: amazon.com

Is Hot Bag of Air That Is Grover Norquist Finally Floating Away?

According to a lot of press lately, which was even accompanied by some minor scolding from his own party, it seems as if Grover Norquist might be losing his kung-fu grip on the balls of the republican party when it comes to anything and everything involving his favorite four letter word... tax. But in the harsh light in the post-election morning, GOP politicians are beginning to realize that the napoleonic GOP tax emperor has no clothes. Or more realistically considering the climate and how the Republicans are polling against the President on the so-called fiscal cliff, they realize that threat of Mr. Norquist holding (most of) their previous anti-tax pledges against them in a future primary battle is rather hollow in the face of refusing to let the Bush tax cuts expire against the highest two tax brackets (I am not even going to get hysterically started on how the Bush tax cuts were ALWAYS supposed to sunset after 10 years). The majority of people support the raising of the wealthiest and most will also blame the GOP if a deal gets done. The bet being made many is that it is a lot more dangerous to the electoral prospects of those involved to obey Grover rather than to ignore him.

The party has not put Grover in the corner yet, however. He is now trying to use the debt ceiling to get what he, and many far-right conservatives in the House as well (to be fair), wants on the fiscal cliff. Boehner has now even stated that "everything has a price" as an barely implicit threat to use the debt ceiling despite the fact that it threatens the full faith and credit of the US, led to a downgrade of the US' credit rating last year and 60% of Americans support raising taxes on the top 2% of Americans (oh, and that little 332 and 51% election win by POTUS).

Due to that last bit, and because the majority of Americans will blame the Republican Party for a failure to avert the fiscal cliff, the President is refusing to back down from either his promise to raise taxes on the top 2% OR his conviction to take the debt ceiling off the table for the future so it can no longer be used as a threat nuclear option bargaining chip by the GOP. As President Obama still appears to have a massive chip stack in front of him, it strikes me as the right play. Not only is the raising of taxes on the wealthiest something he ran hard on and won on this fall, but the debt ceiling argument last year cast a black cloud over the United States last year. The President did not get overly blamed on that, but it still caused many to doubt the sanity of the political process. These negotiations during this lame duck session may be an important step to illustrate that this past election was the first sign that sanity is starting to creep back into our Congressional halls.

Here's to hoping, because the world is still watching. Maybe only with one eye because they have their own shit going on over in the EU and China, but watching nonetheless.

IMAGE: Mediaite via Google Images

THE RETURN

                                                       


No, not of blog posts here. No one gives a damn about that. This is about the GLORIOUS return of the flat top haircut. More specifically, on the basketball courts of this nation.See Exhibits A, Iman Shumpert on the left, and B, Nerlens Noel on the right, and just really soak it in. The world hasn't seen a resurgence of the hair tower of power since the golden years of Patrick Ewing and Kendall Gill (although Shump is looking more like he rolled out of Kid N Play).

I, for one, could not be more excited. I can only intuit that this means a banner year for the NBA, and a NY Knickerbocker's championship banner (he said with the slightest, and saddest, but of hope in his voice). Cheers to you Flat Top. And welcome back.