Can you point me to the law where congress gave the president authority to summarilly execute US citizens supporting terrorism?
And if it's an act of war to conduct military operations in the country that he's in, then how the hell do we kill him at all? Surely him being killed by a predator or covert delta force team while 'resisting arrest' is little different from being killed by a predator or covert delta force team while 'being assasinated' in the eyes of Yemen?
Bad enough that the CIA got caught doing renditions, but now they can't even just kill 1 guy in secret. Maybe we can pay the Russians to do it or something, their clandestine services still know how to do their fucking job.
He is in Yemen, not Pakistan. And we get him without making the Yemenis super pissed by letting them get him within their own means, which is giving them an F15 and telling them where to drop the bombs. Although they arrested him once they might be capable of pulling it off again. Extradition is another matter though.
Bad enough that the CIA got caught doing renditions, but now they can't even just kill 1 guy in secret. Maybe we can pay the Russians to do it or something, their clandestine services still know how to do their fucking job.
Political dissidents living in wealthy western European countries are a whole lot easier to assassinate than terrorists hiding out with militias in the mountains of some third world country.
I'm not entirely certain where I stand either but the idea that at the very least having a judge sign off on the evidence against high-priority targets, even if it is done in private, seems like a good idea.
I don't know if that would satisfy me, but I do know that what terrifies me is the idea that the state secrets doctrine entails an entirely free hand.
Edit: From The New York Times editorial board (they say it better than I could):
The court established the secrets privilege in 1953, in United States v. Reynolds. It said the government could withhold evidence if revealing it would jeopardize national security. In that case, the government suppressed a 51-page report about the crash of an Air Force plane on which electronic equipment was being tested.
The privilege turned out to be conceived in sin: the now-declassified report contains no secrets. Instead, it recounts how the engine failure that led to the crash might have been avoided. A lawyer involved said the report “expressly finds negligence” by the Air Force.
I think enthusiasm for state secrets should absolutely be tempered by the fact that the case it was invented for was actually, in reality, a strategically irrelevant cover-up of government error.
And it seems like it's mostly used for that explicit purpose today.
He is in Yemen, not Pakistan. And we get him without making the Yemenis super pissed by letting them get him within their own means, which is giving them an F15 and telling them where to drop the bombs. Although they arrested him once they might be capable of pulling it off again. Extradition is another matter though.
So basically, it would somehow be completely ok to the Yemenis for them to randomly kill some fucker at our behest, Who we announced we were going to kill in the Washington Post, and whom every Arab news outlet knows we've got a death warrant out on, and yet simply giving them his location and having them 'arrest' him for extradition or punishment within Yemen (or an 'accidental' death while resisting arrest) is politically unfeasible?
I really don't get the distinction here, why constitutional protections need to be subsumed to catch the guy when any idiot could come up with a way to catch or kill him that would pass legal muster and be completely legit if a bit shady in an afternoon, unless establishing the right to publicly and officially ignore constitutional protections was the entire point of the excercise.
Again, ways that this could be done without openly violating the constitution or assuming any wildly insane exectutive powers:
a) US issues warrant for arrest, Yemen arrests and extradites him.
b) US issues warrant for arrest, Yemen kills him while resisting arrest.
c) Yemen 'just happens' to find his location, arrests/kills him.
d) US issues warrant for arrest, bounty hunters in yemen arrest/kill him (this is done all the time in the US and even used to arrest people who have fled to Mexico or other foreign nations, and is completely legal).
e) Guy disappears in the middle of the night with no comment by anyone.
In what way is it necessary in any of these scenarios to not only ignore hundreds of years old constitutional laws, but put it in the fucking paper that you are ignoring them? Why would you even do that unless you were testing the waters for future, similar operations?
This isn't some guy hiding out at his grandmother's apartment. If they do find his location, he will be probably surrounded by dozens of armed militia that aren't going to just stand by while your Yemeni bounty hunter (most hilarious thing I've read all week) serves him a warrant. And if the Yemenis were so capable, they wouldn't have much trouble with armed rebel groups. But they aren't so capable and they do have trouble with these things.
If it were so easy to capture him, we would capture him. The whole fucking point of this scenario is that it isn't easy to capture him. The Yemenis don't want to do it by hand and they don't want us in their country, so all we got is big fucking bombs and we have a lot of those. And there's a good argument that it doesn't violate the constitution, since Yemen is completely out of US jurisdiction. We don't even have an extradition treaty with them.
Hoz on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited October 2010
if a dude is hiding out in yemen and refusing to contact or negotiate with the government of the country of which he is a citizen, it strikes me that he is exempting himself from the broader legal process and constitutional guarantees of a citizen.
full diligence and oversight in such matters is, of course, desirable. it's not clear to me whether or not these are in place in this situation. given my personal experience with the government, i assume that they are.
This isn't some guy hiding out at his grandmother's apartment. If they do find his location, he will be probably surrounded by dozens of armed militia that aren't going to just stand by while your Yemeni bounty hunter (most hilarious thing I've read all week) serves him a warrant. And if the Yemenis were so capable, they wouldn't have much trouble with armed rebel groups. But they aren't so capable and they do have trouble with these things.
If it were so easy to capture him, we would capture him. The whole fucking point of this scenario is that it isn't easy to capture him. The Yemenis don't want to do it by hand and they don't want us in their country, so all we got is big fucking bombs and we have a lot of those. And there's a good argument that it doesn't violate the constitution, since Yemen is completely out of US jurisdiction. We don't even have an extradition treaty with them.
And so just letting the Yemini's handle it, perhaps selling them some bombs and surreptitiosly tipping them off as to where he is, without putting it in the papers and putting him on some big government target list wasn't an option why?
The issue here is not some random al-queda commander that could be handled fairly easilly, the issue is establishing that US citizens are subject to the same rules that foreign enemy combatants were under Bush. That's the only reason you'd put it in the paper and trigger a legal case about it in the first place (you certainly wouldn't give an interview to newspapers specifically about wanting to kill someone if your main priority was to kill him, odds are someone in Al Queda reads the papers, afterall.)
Jealous Deva on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited October 2010
yemen is pretty much somalia levels of responsive and effective governance. letting them handle anything isn't really a realistic option.
Irond Will on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
if a dude is hiding out in yemen and refusing to contact or negotiate with the government of the country of which he is a citizen, it strikes me that he is exempting himself from the broader legal process and constitutional guarantees of a citizen.
He hasn't even been charged with a crime, and, as such, he has nothing to answer for. The federal government as a whole, let alone the executive branch in particular, doesn't have the authority to tell you, for no particular reason, "come to Washington or we'll kill you."
full diligence and oversight in such matters is, of course, desirable. it's not clear to me whether or not these are in place in this situation. given my personal experience with the government, i assume that they are.
Well, we wrongfully sent that Canadian to be tortured in Syria (whose case was, of course, dismissed on states secrets grounds). I don't think that people running the black ops are perfectly competent, let alone perfectly benevolent, and even if they were, public transparency and the rule of law are still vital to the reasonable function of a democratic system.
Anyone who agrees with MrMinster is effectively siding with this terrorist over the U.S. government. All we're doing is asking him to contact us. There is good reason for him to contact us. This isn't a case of Obama randomly choosing some citizen he wants dead. This isn't applicable to citizens everywhere. It seems to me like some of you want to pick and choose what your government has power over. They have power over everything. It's not a hard concept. This guy is a bad man, anyone can see that, and the way they're going about taking him out spares the highest number of U.S. soldiers as possible. Would you rather we send several squads to raid his hideout, potentially sacrificing 4 or 5 men, just so you can sleep better at night? Because that's what this is about. You don't want the government to, on paper, have authority to put a death warrant on any U.S. citizen it pleases. Guess what; they're going to kill who they deem necessary to kill, whether we know about it or not. Nobody here actually wants to know everything that happens without the media knowing about it. It's easier to not work it out and instead have a bleeding heart about select things like this. If this is so wrong, you should be rallying about why assassination is wrong, and then go on about why war is wrong.
Can you point me to the law where congress gave the president authority to summarilly execute US citizens supporting terrorism?
And if it's an act of war to conduct military operations in the country that he's in, then how the hell do we kill him at all? Surely him being killed by a predator or covert delta force team while 'resisting arrest' is little different from being killed by a predator or covert delta force team while 'being assasinated' in the eyes of Yemen?
You can't summarily execute anyone. Summarily execute means "we caught this dude, and now we're going to kill him without a trial", which is NOT what this order is.
This order is simple: if in the course of whatever operations you have a shot at this dude, take it. The only thing special here is that he's a named person of interest, instead of just being a blanket "if you see a member of AQ, take the shot"
As an aisde about the FBI list: Bin Laden is on it, this dude isn't. Likely because Bin Laden committed a specific crime that the FBI gives a shit about, but the FBI doesn't give a shit about crimes committed entirely outside the US. The CIA to my knowledge does not publish it's version of the list.
if a dude is hiding out in yemen and refusing to contact or negotiate with the government of the country of which he is a citizen, it strikes me that he is exempting himself from the broader legal process and constitutional guarantees of a citizen.
full diligence and oversight in such matters is, of course, desirable. it's not clear to me whether or not these are in place in this situation. given my personal experience with the government, i assume that they are.
Current oversight is (I think) consent given by the National Security Council. I mentioned the problem with this earlier: the NSC is pretty much a single administration's appointees, so there is a risk of groupthink. Even stuffing Senators onto the NSC when such consent is needed would be an improvement (even if not perfect).
As earlier, due process is a lost cause; Yemen cannot be relied on to execute its own laws or to keep secret any information the US might be able to share. Trial in absentia by a federal judge already forsakes due process; there is flatly no way to give Al-Alwaki due process, even though he has a right to it. What we should be concerned about is enforcing a reliable mechanism of oversight.
Anyone who agrees with MrMinster is effectively siding with this terrorist over the U.S. government. All we're doing is asking him to contact us. There is good reason for him to contact us. This isn't a case of Obama randomly choosing some citizen he wants dead. This isn't applicable to citizens everywhere. It seems to me like some of you want to pick and choose what your government has power over. They have power over everything. It's not a hard concept. This guy is a bad man, anyone can see that, and the way they're going about taking him out spares the highest number of U.S. soldiers as possible. Would you rather we send several squads to raid his hideout, potentially sacrificing 4 or 5 men, just so you can sleep better at night? Because that's what this is about. You don't want the government to, on paper, have authority to put a death warrant on any U.S. citizen it pleases. Guess what; they're going to kill who they deem necessary to kill, whether we know about it or not. Nobody here actually wants to know everything that happens without the media knowing about it. It's easier to not work it out and instead have a bleeding heart about select things like this. If this is so wrong, you should be rallying about why assassination is wrong, and then go on about why war is wrong.
Issuing a kill order is hardly asking for someone to "contact us". If you want contact, offer him money, and meet him over a communications medium of his own choosing. That is contact.
Assassination may be necessary, but it is also dangerous because of how it can be abused. Regardless of the ethics involved, we should still ensure that there is some kind of oversight.
Note that we don't actually know that "this guy is a bad man"; the administration is contending that the proof of that must remain secret for national security reasons. So perhaps someone knows that this guy is a bad man, deserving of death; we don't.
Anyone who agrees with MrMinster is effectively siding with this terrorist over the U.S. government. All we're doing is asking him to contact us. There is good reason for him to contact us. This isn't a case of Obama randomly choosing some citizen he wants dead. This isn't applicable to citizens everywhere. It seems to me like some of you want to pick and choose what your government has power over. They have power over everything. It's not a hard concept. This guy is a bad man, anyone can see that, and the way they're going about taking him out spares the highest number of U.S. soldiers as possible. Would you rather we send several squads to raid his hideout, potentially sacrificing 4 or 5 men, just so you can sleep better at night? Because that's what this is about. You don't want the government to, on paper, have authority to put a death warrant on any U.S. citizen it pleases. Guess what; they're going to kill who they deem necessary to kill, whether we know about it or not. Nobody here actually wants to know everything that happens without the media knowing about it. It's easier to not work it out and instead have a bleeding heart about select things like this. If this is so wrong, you should be rallying about why assassination is wrong, and then go on about why war is wrong.
As earlier, due process is a lost cause; Yemen cannot be relied on to execute its own laws or to keep secret any information the US might be able to share.
I don't understand how this is anything other than a non-sequitor.
Anyone who agrees with MrMinster is effectively siding with this terrorist over the U.S. government. All we're doing is asking him to contact us. There is good reason for him to contact us. This isn't a case of Obama randomly choosing some citizen he wants dead. This isn't applicable to citizens everywhere. It seems to me like some of you want to pick and choose what your government has power over. They have power over everything. It's not a hard concept. This guy is a bad man, anyone can see that, and the way they're going about taking him out spares the highest number of U.S. soldiers as possible. Would you rather we send several squads to raid his hideout, potentially sacrificing 4 or 5 men, just so you can sleep better at night? Because that's what this is about. You don't want the government to, on paper, have authority to put a death warrant on any U.S. citizen it pleases. Guess what; they're going to kill who they deem necessary to kill, whether we know about it or not. Nobody here actually wants to know everything that happens without the media knowing about it. It's easier to not work it out and instead have a bleeding heart about select things like this. If this is so wrong, you should be rallying about why assassination is wrong, and then go on about why war is wrong.
Assassination isn't wrong, in my opinion at the least. Morally, at the least. I'm not sure what American laws say on assassination.
Government breaking the laws it has sworn to uphold is wrong, both legally and morally. I think hundreds of millions of people can be called up as a witness to see Obama swearing to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution. I assume members of the CIA have to do an equivalent as well. By authorizing the assassination of an American citizen they are directly breaking their oaths and thus making a criminal offense.
Anyone who agrees with MrMinster is effectively siding with this terrorist over the U.S. government. All we're doing is asking him to contact us. There is good reason for him to contact us. This isn't a case of Obama randomly choosing some citizen he wants dead. This isn't applicable to citizens everywhere. It seems to me like some of you want to pick and choose what your government has power over. They have power over everything. It's not a hard concept. This guy is a bad man, anyone can see that, and the way they're going about taking him out spares the highest number of U.S. soldiers as possible. Would you rather we send several squads to raid his hideout, potentially sacrificing 4 or 5 men, just so you can sleep better at night? Because that's what this is about. You don't want the government to, on paper, have authority to put a death warrant on any U.S. citizen it pleases. Guess what; they're going to kill who they deem necessary to kill, whether we know about it or not. Nobody here actually wants to know everything that happens without the media knowing about it. It's easier to not work it out and instead have a bleeding heart about select things like this. If this is so wrong, you should be rallying about why assassination is wrong, and then go on about why war is wrong.
Is there a name for when someone packs so many wrong things into a post that you just don't have the endurance to respond to all of them?
2) The expansion of executive powers has the potential to destroy this country. A guy in Yemen does not.
I think this is an excellent argument. I'm all about trashing terrorists as much as the next guy, but I refuse to give up what we hold sacred as Americans to do it.
I also think if this had been issued by the Bush administration, the media shitstorm would've been outrageous.
2) The expansion of executive powers has the potential to destroy this country. A guy in Yemen does not.
I think this is an excellent argument. I'm all about trashing terrorists as much as the next guy, but I refuse to give up what we hold sacred as Americans to do it.
I also think if this had been issued by the Bush administration, the media shitstorm would've been outrageous.
And rightfully so.
It really wouldn't have. The media endorsed (and suggested) most of Bush's executive powers. Hell, one of the first assholes to call for torture was Jonathan Alter, supposedly a liberal. They would ignore/support this one too, much like they are doing currently.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
The media endorsed (and suggested) most of Bush's executive powers. Hell, one of the first assholes to call for torture was Jonathan Alter, supposedly a liberal. They would ignore/support this one too, much like they are doing currently.
Well, The New York Times' editorial board has written very sensibly against. One more reason it's the only paper worth reading.
The New York Times also full-throatedly endorsed extending all the tax cuts, if I recall correctly, so obviously they don't always know what they're talking about.
I have to say I feel really ambivalent about this. I think this scenario is yet another symptom of our inability to fit terrorism, this generalized tactic and all the myriad complexities it encompasses, into our neat boxes labeled "criminal" or "military."
If this guy were the leader of a gang or a narcotics ring and the order was given to shoot on sight, I think everyone and their mom would rightly be flipping out over it. Such a case would be a clear example of violating due process and circumventing our system of justice. Conversely, if we were in an open, hot, guys-in-trenches kind of war with Russia or whoever, and this guy was serving as an officer in their military, I wouldn't blink at him being added to a list of "kill on sight" individuals. That would be considered a legitimate martial action against a military target.
Maybe I'm overlooking something, but it just seems like our system is pretty well split into these two domains, and al-Awlaki and the "war on terror" in general don't really fit into either. We have no real legal precedent to act on, which means a lot of these decisions are being made ad hoc.
The thing that scares me though is the government saying they have the right to do this and not have to tell anyone why. In your example in a war he would be a declared enemy combatant, and that would be fine. In the war on terror do we want to say that anyone who the government thinks is dangerous should be killed? Keep in mind that a fairly significant percentage of the terrorists in Gitmo have turned out to be innocent.
The only thing I see here that's in any way "wrong" is that, potentially, the process for authorizing the use of deadly force if necessary isn't good enough.
Anyone who agrees with MrMinster is effectively siding with this terrorist over the U.S. government. All we're doing is asking him to contact us. There is good reason for him to contact us. This isn't a case of Obama randomly choosing some citizen he wants dead. This isn't applicable to citizens everywhere. It seems to me like some of you want to pick and choose what your government has power over. They have power over everything. It's not a hard concept. This guy is a bad man, anyone can see that, and the way they're going about taking him out spares the highest number of U.S. soldiers as possible. Would you rather we send several squads to raid his hideout, potentially sacrificing 4 or 5 men, just so you can sleep better at night? Because that's what this is about. You don't want the government to, on paper, have authority to put a death warrant on any U.S. citizen it pleases. Guess what; they're going to kill who they deem necessary to kill, whether we know about it or not. Nobody here actually wants to know everything that happens without the media knowing about it. It's easier to not work it out and instead have a bleeding heart about select things like this. If this is so wrong, you should be rallying about why assassination is wrong, and then go on about why war is wrong.
Is there a name for when someone packs so many wrong things into a post that you just don't have the endurance to respond to all of them?
Which is a terrifying thing given our status as the world military superpower.
Erosion would seem to imply that this act is new and unique.
Considering there already exists a process to handle this, I'm imaging this is not the first time.
I don't think this is the first time, no. But if we want to maintain our status as a free country in perpetuity it should damn well be the last time it's ever even brought up.
Which is a terrifying thing given our status as the world military superpower.
Erosion would seem to imply that this act is new and unique.
Considering there already exists a process to handle this, I'm imaging this is not the first time.
I don't think this is the first time, no. But if we want to maintain our status as a free country in perpetuity it should damn well be the last time it's ever even brought up.
Why? Where's the slippery slope here people keep talking about?
They've authorized the use of deadly force, if necessary, when trying to capture this guy. The only reason this even became public is that he's an American Citizen and thus there's a slightly more lenghtly and public approval process for this stuff. Beyond that, I fail to see the distinction between this and any other time the government has authorized the potential use of lethal force.
Which is a terrifying thing given our status as the world military superpower.
Erosion would seem to imply that this act is new and unique.
Considering there already exists a process to handle this, I'm imaging this is not the first time.
I don't think this is the first time, no. But if we want to maintain our status as a free country in perpetuity it should damn well be the last time it's ever even brought up.
Why? Where's the slippery slope here people keep talking about?
They've authorized the use of deadly force, if necessary, when trying to capture this guy. The only reason this even became public is that he's an American Citizen and thus there's a slightly more lenghtly and public approval process for this stuff. Beyond that, I fail to see the distinction between this and any other time the government has authorized the potential use of lethal force.
The government has claimed there is no oversight powers over it, because to do so would reveal state secrets. That's the scary part.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Which is a terrifying thing given our status as the world military superpower.
Erosion would seem to imply that this act is new and unique.
Considering there already exists a process to handle this, I'm imaging this is not the first time.
I don't think this is the first time, no. But if we want to maintain our status as a free country in perpetuity it should damn well be the last time it's ever even brought up.
Why? Where's the slippery slope here people keep talking about?
They've authorized the use of deadly force, if necessary, when trying to capture this guy. The only reason this even became public is that he's an American Citizen and thus there's a slightly more lenghtly and public approval process for this stuff. Beyond that, I fail to see the distinction between this and any other time the government has authorized the potential use of lethal force.
Unfortunately, it's a slope we're already a ways down. Just ask the guys at Gitmo.
The Due Process Clause is there for a reason. Because without it we're a people at the mercy of our government instead of the other way around. That's really the point of American democracy, after all. The government has an extremely limited ability to act against its citizens under the Constitution, and each action like this one that is taken undermines that a little more.
Is this guy a bad guy? The answer certainly seems to be yes. Is that a reason to throw constitutional protections out the window? Hell no.
Which is a terrifying thing given our status as the world military superpower.
Erosion would seem to imply that this act is new and unique.
Considering there already exists a process to handle this, I'm imaging this is not the first time.
I don't think this is the first time, no. But if we want to maintain our status as a free country in perpetuity it should damn well be the last time it's ever even brought up.
Why? Where's the slippery slope here people keep talking about?
They've authorized the use of deadly force, if necessary, when trying to capture this guy. The only reason this even became public is that he's an American Citizen and thus there's a slightly more lenghtly and public approval process for this stuff. Beyond that, I fail to see the distinction between this and any other time the government has authorized the potential use of lethal force.
The government has claimed there is no oversight powers over it, because to do so would reveal state secrets. That's the scary part.
AFAIK the government has claimed there's no public powers of oversight because that would reveal state secrets.
Which is a terrifying thing given our status as the world military superpower.
Erosion would seem to imply that this act is new and unique.
Considering there already exists a process to handle this, I'm imaging this is not the first time.
I don't think this is the first time, no. But if we want to maintain our status as a free country in perpetuity it should damn well be the last time it's ever even brought up.
Why? Where's the slippery slope here people keep talking about?
They've authorized the use of deadly force, if necessary, when trying to capture this guy. The only reason this even became public is that he's an American Citizen and thus there's a slightly more lenghtly and public approval process for this stuff. Beyond that, I fail to see the distinction between this and any other time the government has authorized the potential use of lethal force.
Unfortunately, it's a slope we're already a ways down. Just ask the guys at Gitmo.
The Due Process Clause is there for a reason. Because without it we're a people at the mercy of our government instead of the other way around. That's really the point of American democracy, after all. The government has an extremely limited ability to act against its citizens under the Constitution, and each action like this one that is taken undermines that a little more.
Is this guy a bad guy? The answer certainly seems to be yes. Is that a reason to throw constitutional protections out the window? Hell no.
Gitmo is completely different though. The notable difference being they are in custody. It's the same reason you can shoot an enemy soldier just fine .... till he surrenders. After that, you must treat him according to certain rules.
The issue here revolves around their (potential) inability to bring him into custody. And thus, the authorization of lethal force if necessary.
Which is a terrifying thing given our status as the world military superpower.
Erosion would seem to imply that this act is new and unique.
Considering there already exists a process to handle this, I'm imaging this is not the first time.
I don't think this is the first time, no. But if we want to maintain our status as a free country in perpetuity it should damn well be the last time it's ever even brought up.
Why? Where's the slippery slope here people keep talking about?
They've authorized the use of deadly force, if necessary, when trying to capture this guy. The only reason this even became public is that he's an American Citizen and thus there's a slightly more lenghtly and public approval process for this stuff. Beyond that, I fail to see the distinction between this and any other time the government has authorized the potential use of lethal force.
The government has claimed there is no oversight powers over it, because to do so would reveal state secrets. That's the scary part.
AFAIK the government has claimed there's no public powers of oversight because that would reveal state secrets.
Someone, however, has looked at and approved it.
Secret courts are not due process.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Which is a terrifying thing given our status as the world military superpower.
Erosion would seem to imply that this act is new and unique.
Considering there already exists a process to handle this, I'm imaging this is not the first time.
I don't think this is the first time, no. But if we want to maintain our status as a free country in perpetuity it should damn well be the last time it's ever even brought up.
Why? Where's the slippery slope here people keep talking about?
They've authorized the use of deadly force, if necessary, when trying to capture this guy. The only reason this even became public is that he's an American Citizen and thus there's a slightly more lenghtly and public approval process for this stuff. Beyond that, I fail to see the distinction between this and any other time the government has authorized the potential use of lethal force.
Unfortunately, it's a slope we're already a ways down. Just ask the guys at Gitmo.
The Due Process Clause is there for a reason. Because without it we're a people at the mercy of our government instead of the other way around. That's really the point of American democracy, after all. The government has an extremely limited ability to act against its citizens under the Constitution, and each action like this one that is taken undermines that a little more.
Is this guy a bad guy? The answer certainly seems to be yes. Is that a reason to throw constitutional protections out the window? Hell no.
Gitmo is completely different though. The notable difference being they are in custody. It's the same reason you can shoot an enemy soldier just fine .... till he surrenders. After that, you must treat him according to certain rules.
The issue here revolves around their (potential) inability to bring him into custody. And thus, the authorization of lethal force if necessary.
And if he gets shot on the battlefield as a combatant, nobody is going to think twice. Because that makes him an active enemy of the united states and a perfectly valid target.
But effectively putting a hit out on someone who has rights as an American citizen is toeing the line on state sponsored murder of internal political enemies. This is an extreme case, granted, but he gets rights because the rest of us still need them.
The only thing I would really want to see changed in this area is that oversight needs to come from outside the Executive. Preferably the Judicial. So I think someone like, say, a Supreme Court Justice should be the one to decide if something actually needs to be kept classified.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Posts
Can you point me to the law where congress gave the president authority to summarilly execute US citizens supporting terrorism?
And if it's an act of war to conduct military operations in the country that he's in, then how the hell do we kill him at all? Surely him being killed by a predator or covert delta force team while 'resisting arrest' is little different from being killed by a predator or covert delta force team while 'being assasinated' in the eyes of Yemen?
Political dissidents living in wealthy western European countries are a whole lot easier to assassinate than terrorists hiding out with militias in the mountains of some third world country.
And it seems like it's mostly used for that explicit purpose today.
So basically, it would somehow be completely ok to the Yemenis for them to randomly kill some fucker at our behest, Who we announced we were going to kill in the Washington Post, and whom every Arab news outlet knows we've got a death warrant out on, and yet simply giving them his location and having them 'arrest' him for extradition or punishment within Yemen (or an 'accidental' death while resisting arrest) is politically unfeasible?
I really don't get the distinction here, why constitutional protections need to be subsumed to catch the guy when any idiot could come up with a way to catch or kill him that would pass legal muster and be completely legit if a bit shady in an afternoon, unless establishing the right to publicly and officially ignore constitutional protections was the entire point of the excercise.
Again, ways that this could be done without openly violating the constitution or assuming any wildly insane exectutive powers:
a) US issues warrant for arrest, Yemen arrests and extradites him.
b) US issues warrant for arrest, Yemen kills him while resisting arrest.
c) Yemen 'just happens' to find his location, arrests/kills him.
d) US issues warrant for arrest, bounty hunters in yemen arrest/kill him (this is done all the time in the US and even used to arrest people who have fled to Mexico or other foreign nations, and is completely legal).
e) Guy disappears in the middle of the night with no comment by anyone.
In what way is it necessary in any of these scenarios to not only ignore hundreds of years old constitutional laws, but put it in the fucking paper that you are ignoring them? Why would you even do that unless you were testing the waters for future, similar operations?
This isn't some guy hiding out at his grandmother's apartment. If they do find his location, he will be probably surrounded by dozens of armed militia that aren't going to just stand by while your Yemeni bounty hunter (most hilarious thing I've read all week) serves him a warrant. And if the Yemenis were so capable, they wouldn't have much trouble with armed rebel groups. But they aren't so capable and they do have trouble with these things.
If it were so easy to capture him, we would capture him. The whole fucking point of this scenario is that it isn't easy to capture him. The Yemenis don't want to do it by hand and they don't want us in their country, so all we got is big fucking bombs and we have a lot of those. And there's a good argument that it doesn't violate the constitution, since Yemen is completely out of US jurisdiction. We don't even have an extradition treaty with them.
full diligence and oversight in such matters is, of course, desirable. it's not clear to me whether or not these are in place in this situation. given my personal experience with the government, i assume that they are.
And so just letting the Yemini's handle it, perhaps selling them some bombs and surreptitiosly tipping them off as to where he is, without putting it in the papers and putting him on some big government target list wasn't an option why?
The issue here is not some random al-queda commander that could be handled fairly easilly, the issue is establishing that US citizens are subject to the same rules that foreign enemy combatants were under Bush. That's the only reason you'd put it in the paper and trigger a legal case about it in the first place (you certainly wouldn't give an interview to newspapers specifically about wanting to kill someone if your main priority was to kill him, odds are someone in Al Queda reads the papers, afterall.)
I was under the impression that's irrelevant.
He hasn't even been charged with a crime, and, as such, he has nothing to answer for. The federal government as a whole, let alone the executive branch in particular, doesn't have the authority to tell you, for no particular reason, "come to Washington or we'll kill you."
Well, we wrongfully sent that Canadian to be tortured in Syria (whose case was, of course, dismissed on states secrets grounds). I don't think that people running the black ops are perfectly competent, let alone perfectly benevolent, and even if they were, public transparency and the rule of law are still vital to the reasonable function of a democratic system.
Too tired now. I agree with MrMister.
You can't summarily execute anyone. Summarily execute means "we caught this dude, and now we're going to kill him without a trial", which is NOT what this order is.
This order is simple: if in the course of whatever operations you have a shot at this dude, take it. The only thing special here is that he's a named person of interest, instead of just being a blanket "if you see a member of AQ, take the shot"
As an aisde about the FBI list: Bin Laden is on it, this dude isn't. Likely because Bin Laden committed a specific crime that the FBI gives a shit about, but the FBI doesn't give a shit about crimes committed entirely outside the US. The CIA to my knowledge does not publish it's version of the list.
Current oversight is (I think) consent given by the National Security Council. I mentioned the problem with this earlier: the NSC is pretty much a single administration's appointees, so there is a risk of groupthink. Even stuffing Senators onto the NSC when such consent is needed would be an improvement (even if not perfect).
As earlier, due process is a lost cause; Yemen cannot be relied on to execute its own laws or to keep secret any information the US might be able to share. Trial in absentia by a federal judge already forsakes due process; there is flatly no way to give Al-Alwaki due process, even though he has a right to it. What we should be concerned about is enforcing a reliable mechanism of oversight.
Issuing a kill order is hardly asking for someone to "contact us". If you want contact, offer him money, and meet him over a communications medium of his own choosing. That is contact.
Assassination may be necessary, but it is also dangerous because of how it can be abused. Regardless of the ethics involved, we should still ensure that there is some kind of oversight.
Note that we don't actually know that "this guy is a bad man"; the administration is contending that the proof of that must remain secret for national security reasons. So perhaps someone knows that this guy is a bad man, deserving of death; we don't.
Jesus Katy, I hope you're trolling.
http://numberblog.wordpress.com/
I don't understand how this is anything other than a non-sequitor.
Assassination isn't wrong, in my opinion at the least. Morally, at the least. I'm not sure what American laws say on assassination.
Government breaking the laws it has sworn to uphold is wrong, both legally and morally. I think hundreds of millions of people can be called up as a witness to see Obama swearing to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution. I assume members of the CIA have to do an equivalent as well. By authorizing the assassination of an American citizen they are directly breaking their oaths and thus making a criminal offense.
Is there a name for when someone packs so many wrong things into a post that you just don't have the endurance to respond to all of them?
I think this is an excellent argument. I'm all about trashing terrorists as much as the next guy, but I refuse to give up what we hold sacred as Americans to do it.
I also think if this had been issued by the Bush administration, the media shitstorm would've been outrageous.
And rightfully so.
It really wouldn't have. The media endorsed (and suggested) most of Bush's executive powers. Hell, one of the first assholes to call for torture was Jonathan Alter, supposedly a liberal. They would ignore/support this one too, much like they are doing currently.
Well, The New York Times' editorial board has written very sensibly against. One more reason it's the only paper worth reading.
If this guy were the leader of a gang or a narcotics ring and the order was given to shoot on sight, I think everyone and their mom would rightly be flipping out over it. Such a case would be a clear example of violating due process and circumventing our system of justice. Conversely, if we were in an open, hot, guys-in-trenches kind of war with Russia or whoever, and this guy was serving as an officer in their military, I wouldn't blink at him being added to a list of "kill on sight" individuals. That would be considered a legitimate martial action against a military target.
Maybe I'm overlooking something, but it just seems like our system is pretty well split into these two domains, and al-Awlaki and the "war on terror" in general don't really fit into either. We have no real legal precedent to act on, which means a lot of these decisions are being made ad hoc.
Are you suggesting it be dealt with wholly as a criminal matter? Or a military one?
Which is a terrifying thing given our status as the world military superpower.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Erosion would seem to imply that this act is new and unique.
Considering there already exists a process to handle this, I'm imaging this is not the first time.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Why? Where's the slippery slope here people keep talking about?
They've authorized the use of deadly force, if necessary, when trying to capture this guy. The only reason this even became public is that he's an American Citizen and thus there's a slightly more lenghtly and public approval process for this stuff. Beyond that, I fail to see the distinction between this and any other time the government has authorized the potential use of lethal force.
The government has claimed there is no oversight powers over it, because to do so would reveal state secrets. That's the scary part.
The Due Process Clause is there for a reason. Because without it we're a people at the mercy of our government instead of the other way around. That's really the point of American democracy, after all. The government has an extremely limited ability to act against its citizens under the Constitution, and each action like this one that is taken undermines that a little more.
Is this guy a bad guy? The answer certainly seems to be yes. Is that a reason to throw constitutional protections out the window? Hell no.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
AFAIK the government has claimed there's no public powers of oversight because that would reveal state secrets.
Someone, however, has looked at and approved it.
Gitmo is completely different though. The notable difference being they are in custody. It's the same reason you can shoot an enemy soldier just fine .... till he surrenders. After that, you must treat him according to certain rules.
The issue here revolves around their (potential) inability to bring him into custody. And thus, the authorization of lethal force if necessary.
Secret courts are not due process.
But effectively putting a hit out on someone who has rights as an American citizen is toeing the line on state sponsored murder of internal political enemies. This is an extreme case, granted, but he gets rights because the rest of us still need them.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The only thing I would really want to see changed in this area is that oversight needs to come from outside the Executive. Preferably the Judicial. So I think someone like, say, a Supreme Court Justice should be the one to decide if something actually needs to be kept classified.