Obama picks attorney Jeh Johnson for Homeland Security chief


From Reuters:
President Barack Obama will nominate former Pentagon attorney Jeh Johnson, a national security expert who had a role in ending the military’s ban on gays in the military, to be Homeland Security chief, a White House official said on Thursday.


Johnson was involved in the administration’s policy over the legality of drone use.

He helped lead a review and authored a report that led to the 2010 repeal of the “Don’t’ Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that prevented gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military.
From Breitbart’s Big Peace:

Johnson made the case on behalf of the Obama Administration for the lawful use of targeting a U.S. citizen overseas without having to give the citizen his or her due process under the law. At the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School, Johnson specifically mentioned 4 methods of criteria that were “set forth in the Attorney General’s (Eric Holder) speech a year ago” that would enable the US government to terminate one of their own:

*]The target is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans.
*]The individual poses an imminent threat to the United States
*]Capture is not feasible
*]The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles

Just wonderful. An advocate for targeting American citizens for assassination is going to be in charge of Homeland Security.

[Hyperbole follows:] I wonder when, in his new post, he will make the case for the assassination for US citizens within the borders of the US, as he did for US citizens overseas[/end hyperbole]


I feel safer already :rolleyes:


I’m going to go ahead and say that the constitution is not a suicide pact and that I am ok with targeting US citizens who are actively participating in terrorist organizations overseas and working against the US. Yes, it’s unfortunate, yes, it’s a bad position to be in, and yes, it should be done with the utmost prudence and with the desire to try to find a better way.

But if capture isn’t feasible I just can’t see waiting until innocents are killed to act.


Who said capture wasn’t feasible? By all indications capture just isn’t convenient.


It was one of the requirements listed in the OP, and it really isn’t even much of a sticking point for me.

Foreign relations, and specifically the issues of preemptive strike and targeted killings are one of the areas that I swing pretty far to the right in.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge advocate of due process and I believe that there are only a few, extremely limited circumstances in which it setting it aside should even be an option. But if someone is outside of our jurisdiction, say in Pakistan, working for an organization that seeks to kill American civilians, I’m all for taking them out. There is no reason why thousands of innocents should be at risk before we act.

This is also one of those issues where I think that there is a lot of grey area and a lot of room for widely different opinions to be discussed seriously and considered valid.

But anytime we are discussing how to best protect civilians and ensure that our principles are upheld there should be a lot of debate and incorporation of various viewpoints.


That would be the third condition in Johnson’s list.


That article is inaccurate. There was no ban on gays in the military. There was a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. That’s not a ban on gays in the military. That’s a ban on discussing your sexual orientation in the military.


It is now more acceptable for a person to discuss their partner’s sexual gender of choice than what was said at their Church the previous week. And the military has the gall to ask for God’s blessing? What a crock.


Has he graduated from The Smoke And Mirrors School of A Transparent Administration…love that credential…


Anyone who gets Obama’s private endorsement likely stinks at his job. See Napolitano, Janet and Geitner, Timothy for more examples.

closed #11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.