There is just no justification for authorizing the killing of US citizens, and then to make matters worse they hide behind "state secret" laws? That is outrageous to me. I disagree with you on one thing though, I absolutely think that killing US citizens without any sort of due process in combination with our policy of holding suspected terrorists indefinitely is leading us towards a more totalitarian state, but I don't necessarily agree that this is only Obama's fault, we've been heading down this path since 2001.

Conflicts are leading to new era of near permanent refugee populations, the head of the United Nation's refugee agency said. Yet rich countries are only willing to take a fraction of those driven forced to flee by drawn-out warfare – especially when it comes to refugees from Afghanistan or Somalia.

"As a result of never-ending conflicts, we are witnessing the creation of a number of quasi-permanent, global refugee populations," Antonio Guterres said in a speech to the UNHCR's governing executive committee on Monday.

Afghan refugees are spread across some 69 countries, he noted. Peace remains a distant hope in Somalia. Only 61 Somalis were able to return home last year.

"I do not believe there is any group of refugees as systematically undesired, stigmatised and discriminated against," he said.

Resettlement demand

Guterres called on developed countries to do more to address the huge demand for resettlement. Of the 800,000 refugees who need somewhere to go annually, only one in ten has a chance of finding a place.

"We need to increase international solidarity and burden sharing. A better understanding and recognition by the international community of the efforts of host countries is absolutely necessary," Guterres declared.

"I do not believe there is any group of refugees as systematically undesired, stigmatised and discriminated against"

Antonio Guterres, head of UNHCR

The UNHCR was responsible for 15 million refugees in 2009, Guterres said. Fewer returned voluntarily to their home country than in previous years.

More than half are fleeing conflict, and most of them are living in developing countries. Many Afghan refugees live in camps in Pakistan and Iran, while Iraqis have fled mainly to Syria and Jordan.

Guterres underlined the "extraordinary generosity" of Iran and Pakistan.

A far smaller numbers of refugees are accepted for resettlement in the European Union member states, North America and Australia.

Even when they manage to arrive in countries further afield, people fleeing conflict zones often face considerable barriers to gaining refugee status. Stuck in a bureaucratic limbo, many brave homelessness, surviving on the streets of countries such as Greece and France as governments turn a blind eye.

Nearly 100 Afghan asylum seekers broke out of a detention centre near Darwin, in Australia, in September to highlight their treatment in by Australian immigration services.

They held up bed sheets reading "We are homeless" and "Show us mercy", the Sydney Morning Herald reported.

The UNHCR is celebrating its sixtieth birthday this December. Refugees and other displaced and stateless people, however, are caught in an ever-more complex environment.

The problem is ‘Is terrorism threat real? Can Taliban and/or Al Qaeda attack US homeland again? Can they do so with nuclear weapons?’

Another problem is US domestic politics. Here again ‘Will American people fall for the hoax of a terrorism threat that Republicans so successfully employ against Democrats? American people fell for it in 2004 elections as everyone knows when George W. beat Kerry using ‘terrorism’ stick.’

And then there is a question of humanitarian dimension which Americans can forget after nine long years of war, but it is there nonetheless. Karzai told his Afghan audience recently that ‘he would have no choice but to send his son to a foreign country to study because he is afraid that his son will be killed if he goes to Afghan school’. He cried in public while he said it and he was speaking the eventuality, not just probability.

Obama had to buckle under Generals’ pressure and approve a ‘surge’ to see if it will work. He would have been accused of being soft on terrorism if he hadn’t. However his goal of stopping ‘the terror cancer’ spreading from Pakistan to Afghanistan was going to be in conflict with his ’early exit strategy’ anyway.

Obama will have to choose between the two goals come June, 2011: Does he want to get out as soon as possible from Afghanistan or does he want to stop ‘the terror cancer spreading from Pakistan to Afghanistan‘? He can’t have both. If he chooses the former, he will be accused of being soft on terrorism and Republicans may well defeat him in 2012. If he chooses later, he may still loose and pass Afghan war to his successor in 2012 or in 2016 if he wins in 2012.

If only Obama would not have won in 2008! It would have been interesting to watch how John McCain/ Sarah Palin team would have handled exploding budget deficits, wall street meltdown and loosing war in Afghanistan.

In Reid v. Covert (1957), the U.S. Supreme Court held that (i) the President and the Congress are creatures of the Constitution; and that (ii) they have no authority to do anything overseas which is prohibited by the Constitution.

It is hard to believe that the President or his advisers studied constitutional law and aren't aware of the consequences of that decision. So, the President has undoubtedly been advised that he has the power to kill U.S. citizens anywhere without affording them due process, not just overseas.

"I do think there is a genuine danger in allowing any president the authority to order the killing of a U.S. citizen without due process."

It's not "dangerous" it is flatly unconstitutional. What else need be said? It's shameful and disturbing that you would call this anything less. Even Amo's #7 says, "By being convicted of committing treason"---that's CONVICTED according to DUE PROCESS. Where is the mystery or gray area?

In listening to the Bloggingheads chat, I noticed that Peter's sources of optimism for Pakistan in the openning few minutes seemed only loosely (if at all) connected to US combat presence in AFG. I expected you to press him a little more on that point, but the conversation moved on to other issues.

I think everyone on this blog is familiar with your position on a draw down of the the US military footprint in Afghanistan. But, play devil's advocate with me here...

1) What value added do large formations in Afghanistan bring to regional security, if the best news coming from Pakistan is unrelated to our efforts in Afghanistan?

A separate but related point

2) Assuming that the "target, train and transfer" program works and we can begin the draw down of BCTs, we will find ourselves staring at similar force package to what had been on the ground prior to 2006. But, its important to note that even before the 2009 surge, troop levels in Afghanistan had been gradually but steadily increasing. Has the public AFPAK debate avoided some other geopolitical interests the US has in maintaining a permanent presence in AFG?