Getting this out of [chat] now
will update OP as I go
This was touched on briefly in the 'do you think obama is still a good president hurf durf' but I think some updates have come around and it merits its own thread. Relevant links
Basically the original article
Presidential assassinations of U.S. citizens
But buried in Priest's article is her revelation that American citizens are now being placed on a secret "hit list" of people whom the President has personally authorized to be killed:
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. . . .
The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, "it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them," a senior administration official said. "They are then part of the enemy."
Both the CIA and the JSOC maintain lists of individuals, called "High Value Targets" and "High Value Individuals," whom they seek to kill or capture. The JSOC list includes three Americans, including [New Mexico-born Islamic cleric Anwar] Aulaqi, whose name was added late last year. As of several months ago, the CIA list included three U.S. citizens, and an intelligence official said that Aulaqi's name has now been added.
Indeed, Aulaqi was clearly one of the prime targets of the late-December missile strikes in Yemen, as anonymous officials excitedly announced -- falsely, as it turns out -- that he was killed in one of those strikes.
Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." They're entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration's policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges -- based solely on the President's claim that they were Terrorists -- produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn't Obama's policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind -- not imprisoned, but killed -- produce at least as much controversy?
U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.
Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.
American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.
It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president.
But the director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, told a House hearing in February that such a step was possible. “We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community,” he said. “If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.” He did not name Mr. Awlaki as a target.
The step taken against Mr. Awlaki, which occurred earlier this year, is a vivid illustration of his rise to prominence in the constellation of terrorist leaders. But his popularity as a cleric, whose lectures on Islamic scripture have a large following among English-speaking Muslims, means any action against him could rebound against the United States in the larger ideological campaign against Al Qaeda.
The possibility that Mr. Awlaki might be added to the target list was reported by The Los Angeles Times in January, and Reuters reported on Tuesday that he was approved for capture or killing.
“The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”
The official added: “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one. Awlaki knows what he’s done, and he knows he won’t be met with handshakes and flowers. None of this should surprise anyone.”
As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.
Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.
At a panel discussion in Washington on Tuesday, Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California and chairwoman of a House subcommittee on homeland security, called Mr. Awlaki “probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us.”
Followup articles by Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations/index.htmlhttp://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/08/olbermann/index.html
Further reading:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/morris-davis/obama-death-panels-and-th_b_577589.html
Feral are you seriously advocating the enemy combatant line of executive philosophy? Seriously?
are you advocating combating heavily armed uniformed guerrillas with something other than soldiers?
So you are then. This line of thinking is what allowed travesties like Guantanamo to exist. You can't have it both ways. You can't allow the government to arbitrarily decide who qualifies as an enemy combatant when it's convenient for them.
What is your proposal?
Seriously.
edit: and no, this isn't a binary issue. Things are allowed to be complex ffs
My proposal is, I was pretty certain until now, what we were all on board with. That authorizing the assassination, not just the apprehension dead or alive, the assassination of US citizens is a horrible precedent. Just like the detainment of a US citizen without due process is Bad. Just like Guantanamo is Bad. Because the government has shown that it is incredibly fallible and maybe we shouldn't be trying to kill people outright, anywhere, no matter whether they're surrounded by armed guards or fluffy puppies.
So, I guess. Talk about whether you think this is actually assassination or just a misstatement of the CIA's high priority list. Or whether you think this is justifiable even if it is a targeted hit.
Posts
You're talking about killing post-defection enemy combatants. And I know that phrase gets thrown around a lot, but there is, in fact, a very big difference between domestic terrorists and hostile faction leaders.
e: As long as oversight exists.
Hamham, there's kind of a difference between someone dying on a battlefield fighting you and a death sentence to be carried out outside of combat if possible (whether by drone strike or sniper or whatever) without a trial. I'm kind of shaky on those things on all but the very most obviously guilty people to begin with, when they have American citizenship it gets more gross.
Unfortunately, as I understand it, the oversight here is the "Gang of Eight" who can't actually do anything about it without violating security clearances. Last seen fucking us over when Bush was torturing people.
What's your reasoning here. Are these guys(SWAT, Police Snipers) not allowed to kill people except in self defense or to prevent imminent danger to others?
On the black screen
--
Grammar dude.
You are asking me if the cops are allowed to kill people UNLESS they are doing it for a good reason.
You're making it out like I am against shooting someone pointing a gun at me and firing, or about to fire on someone else. I am against targeted hits.
On the black screen
a good reason defined as the prevention of clear and imminent harm to themselves or others yes.
On the black screen
Authorization of deadly force is not the same thing as an order of deadly force. It is not a hit. It is acknowledging that it is worth deadly force (a shoplifter is not) and that you will most likely need to apply deadly force (crazy psycho serial killer COULD kiss the ground and cooperate, but yeah don't base your weekend on it). It also means that if the option is between the target escaping and the target dying you go for dying because they are going to lead to more harm otherwise.
What makes you think that this orders the assassination, rather than the authorization of deadly force during the course of apprehension, of HVTs?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
How are you parsing this with the NY Times article calling it a 'targetted hit'. That language, nor any of the corroborating language, sounds like simple authorization of deadly force.
Feral, this applies to you as well.
On the black screen
Did you notice the original article you linked contained a link to the article it is based on?
The order is "Kill or Capture."
The news can call it what they want, that doesn't affect what the actual situation is. I think it's important to find out what's actually going on.
The NY Times article is light on details as well as sources.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
and now so am I, shit
I had noticed the WT Kill or Capture clause but as this article had come chronologically after by some extent it seemed as though different details had come to light but your point is taken as every bit of related media I can find is centered around the salon and WT article.
bed. will check here in morning. if this has all been a stupid misunderstanding you can put me in the dunce corner.
On the black screen
Ever played the game "telephone"?
And then when you miss, people try to blow up Times Square. Oops. For these kinds of things to work you need really, really good intelligence.
Before we needed cult comedy news shows to tell us about this stuff.
I just don't see a way that we can effectively collect and act on intelligence regarding clandestine military leaders while simultaneously revealing that intelligence to public oversight. I don't see how we can combat those people without using deadly force.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You can either bomb them/perform drone attacks as we have in Pakistan in which case you inevitably miss and make even more people angry with you, invade and try to install a government less likely to create the kinds of conditions that inspire terrorism but then you look like occupiers and make even more people angry with you as we've done in Afghanistan, or you could just kind of be vigilant and try to stop things as they happen in your own country, but you'll inevitably miss one.
Long term, I really do think the best option is a relatively hands off one where you're performing less and less of the actions that make people hate you and increasing things like foreign aid budgets (we're fucking misers as a percentage of GDP).
You make it sound as if this is a military action on a battlefield. But we've always had the power to kill people fairly indiscriminately in those situations. What is special about this is that it's not a military action on a battlefield, but rather a questionably legal police action.
There certainly is quite a difference between authorizing deadly force in the course of apprehension, which, as far as I know, is routine, and ordering an assassination. If you look at a cop funny and/or are a minority during the course of an arrest then they'll shoot your face off, so that's not news. An assassination of an American citizen, however, ultimately abrogates the legal system entirely.
And, in case you were curious, I'm not so hot on assassinations of random brown people either. However, this does merit a special sort of alarm, because assassinating random brown people has a long and little-told history in the United States executive, whereas hits on American citizens do not. That would represent a significant expansion of executive power, which, if anything, should be retreating.
What would have happened, we can wonder, if during the Cold War the President determined himself to have the power to assassinate, without trial, Americans who the CIA had determined to be acting with or in support of international Communism? Jane Fonda visited North Vietnam and wore a red peasant dress to commemorate their struggle. What, exactly, would we do to her?
Do you think that it is immoral for the United States to kill Osama Bin Laden? Do you think that it should be illegal (either by domestic or international law) for the President to authorize such a killing?
Because, honestly, al-Awlaki, who has acted as a recruiter and personal advisor to a laundry list of people involved in terrorist actions, is not entirely analogous to a public figure who offers moral or philosophical support to an ideology.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Are we talking about a cave in Afghanistan, a country which we invaded and now rule under a quasi-martial law, or are we talking about a high-rise apartment building in Riyadh? If it's the latter, then apprehension, rather than assassination, is the name of the game--preferably apprehension by the government with actual criminal jurisdiction over the city.
How do you feel about, for instance, Nicaraguan secret service members carrying out a hit on Oliver North, or perhaps Regan (while he was alive)? That tag team doubtless killed more Nicaraguans than Osama Bin Laden killed Americans. Nonetheless, we have certain standards for international law and jurisdiction which frown on those sorts of forays.
I find it highly questionable. Concrete proof hasn't been shown that this guy Anwar is providing material support, he's just on youtube being a cheerleader. And of course the administration wants to look like it's doing something so it puts out this assassination directive. At least they're open about it, unlike the Bushies, which gives me hope that the system will work this out.
Now we're coming back to the issue where the CIA is authorized to kill or capture High Value Targets. Yes, I believe that there's a moral, if not legal, responsibility to apprehend if possible. I haven't seen any evidence, other than an extremely sensationalist NYT headline, that the CIA would go into a civilian residential area with guns blazing. That said, I haven't seen any evidence that they wouldn't, but I have exactly the same misgivings about domestic law enforcement operating against petty criminals.
I'm not sure, honestly, and it would require an assessment of the particulars of that particular conflict that I don't feel I have the historical understanding to make.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I would have killed her in a second. Not really, but if a stray bomb had blown her to kingdom come I would not be shedding any tears.
And really I don't see the point assassinating non-americans is fine, but because somebody is born here they are off limits?
I think we need to assassinate more people really. I would rather kill the guy sending people off to die rather then the poor fools who are rushing off to die. As long as they are in a leadership position blow them to pieces.
Terrorism is a complicated subject sometimes it needs to be treated as a criminal action and sometimes it needs to be treated as a military action. The idea that you can arrest people who are surrounded by a well armed army is pretty ridiculous.
What do you think we do with crime bosses?
C&P'd from the 1st spoilered article in the OP.
So as long as the intelligence on US Citizen X is solid, and X is a threat against America, this policy works well.
If your intelligence is not solid, or fabricated, then this could suck. Alot.
Probably best to lean on the side of caution on this one.
14th Amendment.
Contrary to whatever 80s action movies you have been watching the average mafia member does not go around toting assault rifles and missile launchers.
If your talking about criminal enterprises outside america, then yes we assassinated Pablo Escobar.
I don't think you can justify killing elected leaders. For that reason somebody like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be off limits even if we were to go to war with Iran.
Unlike a dictator whose actions are his own I think an elected leaders actions are the countries actions as a whole.
Your vitriol is off-topic; the relevant similarity here is in degrees of personal security and how that interacts with our capability to apprehend the subject.
Not a huge fan of assassinations in any case, but again, not an American citizen. American citizen represents a substantial, and dangerous, enlargement of executive authority.