The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the  September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director.  Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses  “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described  by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches.  It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

“The condition that an operational  leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Read the entire ‘white paper’ on drone strikes on Americans

Instead, it says,  an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American  has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is  no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful:  In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect  would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.

The undated memo is entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force.”  It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and  not discussed publicly.

Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration  officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice Department’s  Office of Legal Counsel, which provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly — or even publicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is not classified, provided a copy to NBC News.

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans.  “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

In particular, Jaffer said, the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the white paper. The spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, instead pointed to public speeches by what she called a “parade” of administration officials, including Brennan, Holder, former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and former Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson that she said outlined the “legal framework” for such operations.

Pressure for turning over the Justice Department memos on targeted killings of Americans appears to be building on Capitol Hill amid signs that Brennan will be grilled on the subject at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

On Monday, a bipartisan group of 11 senators — led by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon — wrote  a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to release all Justice Department memos on the subject. While accepting that “there will clearly be circumstances in which the president has the authority to use lethal force” against Americans who take up arms against the country,  it said, “It is vitally important … for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how  the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of this authority.”

Anticipating domestic boom, colleges rev up drone piloting programs

The completeness of the administration’s public accounts of its legal arguments was also sharply criticized last month by U.S. Judge Colleen McMahon in response to a  lawsuit brought by the New York Times and the ACLU seeking access to the Justice Department memos on drone strikes targeting Americans under the Freedom of Information Act.  McMahon, describing herself as being caught in a “veritable Catch-22,”  said she was unable to order the release of the documents given “the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for the conclusion a secret.”

In her ruling, McMahon noted that administration officials “had engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens.” But, she wrote, they have done so “in cryptic and imprecise ways, generally without citing … any statute or court decision that justifies its conclusions.”

In one passage in Holder’s speech at Northwestern in March,  he alluded – without spelling out—that there might be circumstances where the president might order attacks against American citizens without specific knowledge of when or where an attack against the U.S. might take place.

“The Constitution does not  require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning, when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear,”  he said.

But his speech did not contain the additional language in the white paper suggesting that no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike. Similarly, Holder said in his speech that targeted killings of Americans can be justified  if “capture is not feasible.” But he did not include language in the white paper saying that an operation might not be feasible “if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country (where the target is located) were to decline to consent to a capture operation.” The speech also made no reference to the risk that might be posed to U.S. forces seeking to capture a target, as was  mentioned in the white paper.

The white paper also includes a more extensive discussion of why targeted strikes against Americans does not violate constitutional protections afforded American citizens as well as   a U.S. law that criminalizes the killing of U.S. nationals overseas.

It  also discusses why such targeted killings would not be a war crime or violate a U.S. executive order banning assassinations.

“A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” the white paper reads. “In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly,  the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.”

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

What it is:
Primer is a lightweight, complexion corrector that enhances the skin’s texture making it easier smoother for makeup application.

With my tanned skin in the summer and pale skin in the winter it is difficult to find a foundation that will match my skin tone all year round.

So I use  Color 6 Yellow – which lightens dark complexions

If you have trouble finding the right color foundation then tinted primer may be the answer.

While the Obama administration promised not to use this provision, it then proceeded to defend it in court against a group of journalists who feared that their First Amendment activities could land them in indefinite detention. This past May, a U.S. District Court judge enjoined a portion of the 2012 law dealing with indefinite detention, identifying it as unconstitutional on both First and Fifth Amendment grounds. In response, the Obama administration filed an emergency motion to lift the injunction pending an immediate appeal of the ruling. It’s not clear why such an emergency measure would be needed to keep in place an unconstitutional power the president promised never to use. Nonetheless, the injunction was stayed on appeal, thereby restoring the indefinite detention provision of the 2012 NDAA measure while the case wound its way through the court.

Meanwhile, legislative measures were attempted to remedy this pernicious end run around the Bill of Rights. In December 2012, the Senate passed the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, adding a Section 1033, also known as the Feinstein-Lee Amendment. The Feinstein-Lee Amendment was put forth to correct, at least partially, the unconstitutional indefinite detention provisions. The proposed amendment disallowed “detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.” (Some parties pointed out flaws in the amendment as written, such as that it could be interpreted to mean that Congress could authorize indefinite detention by enacting a statute, which does not meet the standard set in the Bill of Rights.)

While the Feinstein-Lee Amendment was included in the version of the bill that passed the Senate, it was not present in the bill as passed by the House and was subsequently stripped from the bill without explanation from the final language of the bill by the conference committee resolving differences between the Senate and House versions.

Closing the loop yesterday, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, complete with the indefinite detention provision intact, giving only a non-legally binding verbal assurance that he won’t use it. Since the Constitution itself, complete with the Fifth Amendment, is supposed to be the guarantee that government will take no such actions, however, passing and signing a bill that directly contradicts that Constitutional guarantee puts all of us at risk.

As was the NDAA passed for 2012, this version of the National Defense Authorization Act sells out the due process promises made in Constitution as well as everyone who could potentially be charged with any of the limitless undefined offenses the government could possibly invent. When government acts as lawmaker, judge, jury, and prison warden, unburdened by any mechanism of accountability to or check on its power by those subjected to its whims, justice for our families and neighbors is easily subverted in favor of political power and privilege.

https://fija.org/2013/01/03/obama-signs-ndaa-with-indefinite-detention-provision-still-in-place/

Are you and your partner constantly fighting?

Are you doing everything and your partner is doing nothing?

Are you tired of nagging or being nagged?

Do you think your partner is cheating?

Are you considering breaking up but don’t know how?

Most people don’t need serious relationship counseling they just need some new insights to help identify negative patterns and help creating a plan to tackle them.

Whether you have a serious relationship problem or just need to vent about an issue,  advice is only and email away.  

 advice@looksandlove.com

Theres so many elements to life that so many people account for when they judge if they are truly happy or not. but its none of those things that makes you happy.

Its being with the one you love and embarking on life’s journey together. not only do you this, but you go through ups and downs with this person, making each of you grow as human beings and together as a unit.

Being happy doesn’t just include love though. its the ability to enjoy the things that you do each and every day. for me that means to have the perfect job in your interest area or doing exactly what you thought you would do when you were younger. being something that you had to work to be and feeling accomplished when looking back on the person that youve become. so basically, if you have all the elements of things you consider happy, then youre having a good life. and who wants to live a bad one? theres only one life to live.

Viva la vida. [and you all thought i just got a stupid tattoo (; ] 

This has to be one of the most difficult question to answer for the majority of us.   Only a lucky few grow up knowing what they want to be.  The rest of us go through many ideas, visions and revisions of who we think we are  and who we think we want to be…. and I as continue on my journey I have realized that not knowing is OK. 

I used to feel pressured (by myself and others) to choose a career and stick to it.  But I’ve had 100′s of ideas and have tried my hand at many different types of jobs and hobbies.  Some have been fun, some more work than I thought but at the end of the day I’m glad for the experiences.  I may not have achieved career or multimillion dollar success (yet!) but I’ve had fun trying thing others would never dare to try, meeting interesting people and checking off my bucket list. 

When I grow up I want to be a fabulous, fascinating person with amazing stories to share with my grand kids.

Inspiration

My sister-in-law’s birthday was fast approaching and I had to quickly decide what I was going to bake her.  I know that she has an appreciation for fresh, all natural ingredients, so I decided to keep her cake very simple.  Behold!  Strawberries, Chiffon Cake and Whipped Cream.  This cake was absolutely divine and was well received by everyone.

Ingredients

Chiffon Cake

2 cups SIFTED cake flour  OR 2 cups all purpose flour plus 4 tablespoons

1 1/2 cups white sugar

1 tablespoon baking powder

1 teaspoon salt

1/2 cup vegetable oil

7 egg yolks (room temperature)

3/4 cup cold water

2 teaspoons vanilla extract

7 egg whites

1/2 teaspoon cream of tartar

Directions

1.  Preheat oven to 325 degrees

2.  Wash three eight inch round spring form pans in hot soapy water to ensure it is totally grease free.  Dry the pans and line the bottom of the pan with parchment paper

3.  Measure flour, sugar, baking powder, and salt into sifter. Sift into bowl. Make a well; add oil, egg yolks, water, and vanilla to the well in the order that is given.   Set aside.   Don’t beat.

4.  In a separate large mixing bowl, beat egg whites and cream of tartar until very stiff (when you lift the beaters from the egg white mixture stiff peaks form and do not flop over). Set aside.

5.  Using same beaters, beat egg yolk/flour mixure until smooth and light (do not over-mix). Pour 1/3 at a time gradually over egg whites, folding (NOT MIXING, GENTLY FOLDING) in with rubber spatula. Pour batter evenly into 3 pans.  Place pans in center rack.

6.  Bake for 25 minutes at 325 degrees.  Do not let cake turn golden brown.  It should be light in color when removed from the oven.

Whipped Cream

Three cups Heavy Cream

1 teaspoon vanilla extract per cup of cream

2-3 tablespoons of powdered sugar (to taste)

Directions

Put beaters and bowl in freezer to cool.  Whip on high adding vanilla extract and powdered sugar.  Whip until stiff.  Place some whipped cream in one 12 inch piping bag and store in refigerator until ready to use.  The refrigeration will stiffen the icing which is ideal for piping decorations onto the cake.

To assemble the cake, remove cooled cake from pans and layer the cake, alternating between cake, whipped cream and maserated strawberries.  Use 1 cup of whipped cream between layers and for topping.  I like to serve the cake with the layers visible, so I do not ice the perimeter of the cake because I believe that people should enjoy your dessert with their eyes first and then with their mouths.

Strawberries

Wash strawberries, cut off tops and slice in half or if a really large strawberry, in quarters.  Pour three-four tablespoons of granulated sugar over sliced strawberries and store in refrigerator for 30 minutes.  The amount of sugar depends on how sweet the strawberries are.  When assembling, do not use juice of strawberry or it will make the cake soggy.  Make sure you have virtually two layers of strawberries on the inside of the cake.  Feedback indicates that patrons enjoy a the top of the cake with tons of strawberries and whipped cream.

With Love,

Fulana

There are several things that could be to blame for your flattened pancake-like cookies which includes:

Check your recipe:   Recipes are designed to be tailored to your preferences, so perhaps you selected a lemon.

Use room temperature butter:  You should be able to cream your butter and sugar together.  You should not melt the butter.  Melting butter changes the chemical composition of the fats in the butter, thereby causing a flattened cookie, much like a pancake. Using cold butter results in a scone or cake-like cookie.  So make sure that you set the butter out for half hour or longer prior to baking or place it in a zip lock baggie and submerse it in warmish water for half an hour. I just place it in a bowl and use a can opener to weight it down.

Chill your cookie dough for one hour in the refrigerator.  Chilling the dough prior to baking helps the cookie retain its rounded chewy texture.

Use an ice cream scoop to ensure that you create rounded balls.

Determine if your oven temperature is exact: Most ovens, especially old ovens are off by an average of 25 degrees.  You should use an oven thermometer to measure its accuracy.  Cookies baked at lower temperatures tend to spread more.  So, if you do not want to invest in a thermometer, you should turn up the temperature an extra 25 degrees and see if you get the results that you desire.  If you would love to eat a chewy and delicious cookie, try this recipe and let me know what you think! 

Best and Buen Provecho!

Fulana

In a secret government agreement granted without approval or debate from lawmakers, the U.S. attorney general recently gave the National Counterterrorism Center sweeping new powers to store dossiers on U.S. citizens, even if they are not suspected of a crime, according to a news report.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder granted the center the ability to copy entire government databases holding information on flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and other data, and to store it for up to five years, even without suspicion that someone in the database has committed a crime, according to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story.

Whereas previously the law prohibited the center from storing data compilations on U.S. citizens unless they were suspected of terrorist activity or were relevant to an ongoing terrorism investigation, the new powers give the center the ability to not only collect and store vast databases of information but also to trawl through and analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior in order to uncover activity that could launch an investigation.

The changes granted by Holder would also allow databases containing information about U.S. citizens to be shared with foreign governments for their own analysis.

A former senior White House official told the Journal that the new changes were “breathtaking in scope.”

But counterterrorism officials tried to downplay the move by telling the Journal that the changes come with strict guidelines about how the data can be used.

“The guidelines provide rigorous oversight to protect the information that we have, for authorized and narrow purposes,” Alexander Joel, Civil Liberties Protection Officer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, told the paper.

The NCTC currently maintains the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database, or TIDE, which holds data on more than 500,000 identities suspected of terror activity or terrorism links, including friends and families of suspects, and is the basis for the FBI’s terrorist watchlist.

Under the new rules issued in March, the NCTC can now obtain almost any other government database that it claims is “reasonably believed” to contain “terrorism information.” This could conceivably include collections of financial forms submitted by people seeking federally backed mortgages or even the health records of anyone who sought mental or physical treatment at government-run hospitals, such as Veterans Administration facilities, the paper notes.

The Obama administration’s new rules come after previous surveillance proposals were struck down during the Bush administration, following widespread condemnation.

In 2002, the Pentagon’s Total Information Awareness program proposed to scrutinize both government and private databases, but public outrage killed the program in essence, though not in spirit. Although Congress de-funded the program in 2003, the NSA continued to collect and sift through immense amounts of data about who Americans spoke with, where they traveled and how they spent their money.

The Federal Privacy Act prohibits government agencies from sharing data for any purpose other than the reason for which the data was initially collected, in order to prevent the creation of dossiers, but agencies can do an end-run around this restriction by posting a notice in the Federal Register, providing justification for the data request. Such notices are rarely seen or contested, however.

The changes to the rules for the NCTC were sought in large part after authorities failed to catch Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab before he boarded a plane on Christmas Day in 2009 with explosives sewn into his underwear. Abdulmutallab wasn’t on the FBI watchlist, but the NCTC had received tips about him, and yet failed to search other government databases to connect dots that might have helped prevent him from boarding the plane.

As the NCTC tried to remedy that situation for later suspects, legal obstacles emerged, the Journal reports, since the center was only allowed to query federal databases for a specific name or a specific passenger list. “They couldn’t look through the databases trolling for general ‘patterns,’” the paper notes.

But the request to expand the center’s powers led to a heated debate at the White House and the Department of Homeland Security, with Mary Ellen Callahan, then-chief privacy officer for the Department of Homeland Security, leading the charge to defend civil liberties. Callahan argued that the new rules represented a “sea change” and that every interaction a citizen would have with the government in the future would be ruled by the underlying question, is that person a terrorist?

Callahan lost her battle, however, and subsequently left her job, though it’s not known if her struggle over the NCTC debate played a role in her decision to leave.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/12/gov-dossiers-on-us-citizens/