Obama’s DHS pick is a major Democratic donor, senators question credentials.

This guy resigned as top lawyer for pentagon in 2012 when excessive drone strikes were questioned. Now he is bringing him back. I don't think this is a good idea.

He supports the use of drones to attack elusive terrorism targets overseas and defends the government collection of so-called "metadata" from Americans' phone calls – a National Security Agency program he notes was deemed legal by all three branches of government.

In addition, Johnson spearheaded reforms to the military commissions system at Guantanamo Bay and helped write the 250-page report that led to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 2010, as his firm's website put it.

In recent years, he has urged the public to rethink how they view terrorists and the U.S. battle against terrorism, saying terrorists are no longer strictly aligned with Al Qaeda and have become "more of a mixed bag."

"What worries me most is … our inability in the political dialogue to have a calm, rational debate about new authorities," Johnson said on "The Charlie Rose Show" in May. "People get very emotional about these subjects and very excited about these subjects. … My hope is that we can have a calm, rational, intelligent discussion about what's needed for the future in terms of national security."

[link to abcnews.go.com]

Meet Jeh Johnson: Drone Lawyer and Obama's Homeland Security Nominee

If his name doesn't sound familiar, his pet issues will: Drones and the end of "don't ask, don't tell."

President Obama plans to nominate former Defense Department lawyer Jeh (pronounced "Jay") Johnson for Homeland Security secretary on Friday, The Daily Beast's Daniel Klaidman reports. Johnson will replace acting Secretary Rand Beers, who has been filling in since Janet Napolitano left to become president of the University of California system in September. Johnson was the Defense Department's general counsel from 2009 until last December.

Johnson's legacy at the Defense Department is marked by two high-profile issues: his advocacy of the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," and—as chief lawyer at the Pentagon—his legal authority over all drone strikes carried out by the Defense secretary and President Obama.

Johnson cowrote a report on gays in the military in 2010, an experience that helped turn him into the leading advocate for repeal of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. In 2010, he told The New York Times that people "underestimate the military's ability to adapt."

But despite that leading, public advocacy on a major social issue, Johnson's role in the Obama administration's drone policy is much more relevant to his possible new perch at Homeland Security. And it could speak volumes about how the administration will conduct security policy through the end of Obama's term.

Speaking at Fordham Law School in March, Johnson outlined much of his philosophy on drone strikes and targeted killings. He said "our government is in a lose-lose position" in regards to keeping such programs secret. "The problem is that the American public is suspicious of executive power shrouded in secrecy, " he said. "In the absence of an official picture of what our government is doing, and by what authority, many in the public fill the void by envisioning the worst."

But yet he believes in the system.

[link to www.nationaljournal.com]

Toadies they are

This guy could be dangerous.

Still, he could be relied on to advance the White House's legal agenda within DOD; he'd often refer to himself as "the president's man" at the Pentagon. He adeptly shepherded some of the most legally and politically fraught policy matters at DOD. Chief among them was the repeal of the military's ban on openly gay military service, known as "don't ask, don't tell." Johnson co-chaired a working group with Army General Carter Ham to study the impact of ending the restrictive policy. After surveying the opinions of thousands of active service members, Johnson and Ham issued a report concluding that repealing the policy would pose little risk to military effectiveness. The White House was pleased with Johnson's guiding of the process.


There were other occasions when Johnson's legal judgments conflicted with Obama's policy goals. Perhaps the most contentious legal disagreement with the White House came in 2011 over the decision to use force in Libya without Congressional authorization. Johnson, along with lawyers for the Justice Department, concluded that U.S. participation in a Libyan air war was covered by the War Powers Resolution and would therefore require Congressional approval. Obama, however, sided with administration lawyers who advised that the limited engagement did not amount to "hostilities" as defined by the War Powers Act.

[link to www.thedailybeast.com]

Everything falling so perfectly into place!

Battle stations patriots!

oh they're treading alright.

The power to Kill, with a lawyers blessing.

It doesn't matter what you think, it only matters that democrats keep their major donors on board and happy...

HE WAS BORN ON SEPTEMBER 11 1957....

9-11

9-11

9-11

9-11

Think about the implications of a top pentagon (read military) official being apointed to the civilian DHS.

... and hand picted by a Marxist whose litmus test is that his comanders would obey orders to fire on Americans.

Praise the DHS. I feel so safe!

I believe the right wing US Supreme Court, said not long ago that given big bucks to a canididate is considered free speech.

Gee, why does Obama want this expert of war to be head of Homeland Security?

Another move on the chess board. Another piece in place.

Yep. Always follow the money.

Because he clearly has American's best interest at heart. Same reason he wants IRS to enforce Obamacare - for our own good and protection.

^this^

They should have fucking checked Ocommies credentials!

Yep. Looking out for our best interest.

Obama needs his drone experience for the War on America.

:odrone:

This guy thinks the drone strikes need zero oversight. It's OK because he knows they are only killing bad guys. There is no need for a special court (like the FISA court) to decide if it is Constitutional to kill people with drones. TRUST ME! Yea, he seems pretty cool to me.

Oh its a coming. Bank on it.