Slashdot Mirror
Leaked: Obama's Rules For Assassinating American Citizens
cathyreisenwitz writes "For over a year now journalists, civil liberties advocates, and members of Congress have been asking the Obama administration to release internal memoranda from the Office of Legal Counsel justifying Obama's targeted killing program. While the White House continues to deny that such memos exist, NBC is reporting that it has acquired the next best thing: A secretish 16-page white paper from the Department of Justice that was provided to select members of the Senate last June." Spencer Ackerman at Wired says the leaked rules "[trump] traditional Constitutional protections American citizens enjoy from being killed by their government without due process" by redefining the concept of "imminence."
Governments involved in clandestine assassinations. Who would have thought? And of course, it only happens in other countries, to Al Qaeda and the like. Surely. Oh, and if you believe this, I have a bridge or two I can sell you....
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I'd like to think that this is going to change or this leak will help but I've pretty much given up on that.
Most people don't care and even if they did, they couldn't do anything. AND if they got to a position to do something I think they would become an imminent threat.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Seriously, what more is it going to take?
The US government should authorize the killing of US citizens when:
1. Reply with your idea
2. Reply with your idea
3. Reply with your idea
4. Reply with your idea
5. Reply with your idea
6. Reply with your idea
7. Reply with your idea
8. Reply with your COWBOYNEAL or YOUINSENSITIVECLOD option
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So no one in the MSM will care.
First po [Twack] Agggghhh!
[Thump]
This calls for Impeachment and trial of everyone involved. It will not happen of course, because murder is not as big a deal as getting a blowjob from an intern.
Then they have declared they can do whatever they want. If the standard is they just "determine" who is a member of al queda and whether there is some vague emminant danger, the big question is, who, either before or after the fact, has standing to question these determinations?
If there is nobody who can bring this to court, and no way to have oversight, then this is nothing more than a declaration that Due Process is optional in their eyes and they can suspend it whenever they determine they have the need.... because assasination is de facto denial of due process.
These standards should be considered criminally negligent.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Which party exactly is the party of limited government and civil liberties? It sure isn't the Democrats or the Republicans, and it sure isn't the Libertarians either as they are now thoroughly politicized.
There's one-party rule in the United States, and it comes in two subtly different flavors. No matter who you vote for, you're ultimately voting for the Banks, the Healthcare industry, the Military Industrial Complex and a few unions thrown in to make it all look fair.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
And they said we don't need to bear arms.
I am not sure how this is attributable to just one party.
Obama does suck on this issue... and it is a continuation of Bush policies.
Both "sides" suck here, without a doubt.
And, if Bush was still there doing this a certain portion of the people bitching would be cheering him on.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass
They can attack who they want, when they want, where they want, and waddya gonna do about it? A big fat nothing! Fuck all you all!
Mmmmm...didn't see my name. Everything's O.K.
The US should not be involved in the assassination of anybody.
How many pages is the Al Qadea assassination rules do you suppose ?
I see you managed to evade destruction for at least 3 minutes.
I'm so glad I voted for Obama. I'm seeing excellent results thus far in GW Bush's 4th term.
1. The person who leaked this memo.
.
.
.
Have gnu, will travel.
...can already kill people.
They have guns. Some have pepper spray or tasers alongside, but they all have guns.
Guns aren't there as visual deterrent (they're loaded). Guns aren't for putting down rabid dogs or server as a warning sound.
They're designed for the specific purpose to kill, and the police are trained to use them as the last option. The police are public servants funded by the govt (via taxpayers).
Anyways, I digress. The president having the authority to kill American citizens sounds like a huge groundbreaking breach of civil rights, but it isn't. There's just more formalities to go through (as some other poster said, "Clear and Present Danger").
Blah blah blah. De gubmint iz out to git us!! Wear tinfoil hat! Arm yourselves!
Fuck you, paranoid fucks.
no surprise and who cares. i pay my taxes and obey all the important laws. if they shoot me, ill have money arranged for a lawsuit.
If you are for due process, you are racist.
> Obama's Rules For Assassinating American Citizens
In which ways are american citizens different fron non-american citizens, american non-citizens and non-american non-citizens and other specimens of the genus homo sapiens sapiens?
Anyone else notice the URL on the first link?
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass
This doesn't surprise me considering how far removed the US government is from understanding her primary function - to protect her own citizens. What's to stop them from declaring a leader of a political movement as dangerous, having “recently” been involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack - for example, declaring that the government has no right to interfere with private enterprises, or even supporting 2nd amendment rights?
US citizens relinquished citizenship and due process if they joined an enemy army of the US, whether it was the Redcoats, Germans, or Al Cada.
Its important to set clear boundaries. Joining the US Communist party or neo-nazis should not have had the same consquences because it never declared war on the US.
Plus I am concerned about growing use of domestic drone technology like for the in the Alabama kidnapping this week. Only a short step to arm them.
This is the country that sings "Land of the free and home of the brave". Talk about second amendment and the right/duty of the citizens to guard against tyranny. Then we go to our airports to be gate raped by TSA agents. The lunacy of the procedure is beyond comprehension. There was a picture of a returning war veteran removing his belt and boots to place on the conveyor belt, while a friendly smiling helpful TSA agent was holding his service rifle for him. The stupidity of the situation seemed to escaped both of them.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
My experience has been that whenever this comes up in conversation with actual adults who, while not brilliant, are not stupid either ... they get this dismissive look on their face. It is obvious they are thinking "oh, you are one of those conspiracy nuts, there is no way this could be real".
Most people don't believe this has actually happened.
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
The Bush policy was extraordinary rendition and a stay at Guantanamo until guilt or innocence could be determined -- and that was for non-citizens!
obey the government, and work within the system to gain power. Don't bother trying to overthrow the Matrix.
The US Government, like all governments, has the exact same power structure as any other government, and that is: the strong get to rule over the weak.
You freedom-loving libertarians need to understand this concept. It really is a flaw among you libertarians to think that you somehow live in a "free" country. No, you do NOT live in a free country. You never have. Try breaking a law, and see how much freedom you have.
You're better off accepting that you have no power, rather than thinking you have any sort of power under a democracy. The key is, if you accepted how powerless you were, you would form different methods of gaining power, instead of through silly methods such as through the 2nd amendment, which was designed to help government control you...
Nobody at this point actually thinks their pathetic handgun is going to protect them against tyranny by a government armed with SWAT teams, drones, and nuclear missiles, do they? And their power was actually demonstrated via a civil war where Gen. Sherman burnt down half the south to clear out the rebellious traitors..
It really is shameful that Americans are taught that they have any sort of power, and it's sad seeing them come to the conclusion that they actually don't. The "freedom"-loving libertarian's ego is apparently the hardest thing to destroy, but it must be destroyed for them to actually gain real freedom and power.
Again, we have to make sure people understand that American do NOT have freedom, and that any attempt to make it look that way is the powerful attempting to control the weak by giving the weak an illusion of power.
Can anyone recommend a good forum for technical and interesting stories regarding the advancement of knowledge in this day and age. And not political rhetoric that's just slanted either left or right.
I want to cry when this is the type of stuff at the top of my once beloved slashdot.
It's not that they want it when they get hold of it, it's that this is merely the same thing that they got, only written down as if it were lawfully allowed this time.
"Here the DoJ concludes only that where the following three conditions are met, a US
operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force would be lawful: (1) an informed;
high level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an
imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is infeasible, and
the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) the
operation would be conducted in a manner consistent of the applicable law of war principles.
This conclusion is reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal
operation by the United States against a US citizen, and also of the extraordinary
seriousness of the threat posed by senior operational al-Qa'ida members and the loss of life
that would result were their operations successful."
This type of logic was a guaranteed end-game once we declared War on Terror. After all, in a war, no one asks courts whether the military can take out some high-level commanders, who the troops can shoot, or even what to do with anyone taken from a battle field. Seriously, this should not be a surprise.
The only thing that can change this if we ramp down our rhetoric, and turn the War on Terror into a basic police action against criminals. Then we can go to courts to ask for oversight, request due process for any type of action against any target, and complain that drones really are creepy tools to use.
So you have a choice: start writing to your congress critters and complain about the War on Terror. Tell your friends what the logical consequence of this kind of war is. Lobby right and left to have terrorism be treated as a criminal event, and to have the FBI go after it - not the CIA. Or, you can put up with things like drone-killings done without over sight. Your choice. Will you actually do something about this issue, or will you just complain on the Internet that the War on Terror isn't quite turning out to be as clean as you hoped?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
WTF?
Go right ahead, the same you do ten times per day. You've cried wolf too many times, you waddling, flag-draped buffoon. The government deserves impeachment, but it will not happen because those who routinely called for it -- right from day 1 of the presidency -- discredit the very notion by being utter fuckwits.
All governments redefine words and phrases to change the original intent of laws and violate the people's freedom.
If you didn't know that, it's time to read Animal Farm by George Orwell. It will open your eyes, but probably depress you at the same time.
"[trump] traditional Constitutional protections American citizens enjoy from being killed by their government without due process"
Except the Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. Nobody is supposed to trump it, not the executive, not congress, nobody. If congress should start impeachment proceedings against Eric Holder today.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Precisely! I'm no fan of Obama, but it's a travesty that of all the enemy combatants at Gitmo, the Yemeni who happened to be an US citizen only by accident of birth, but who clearly had/has no loyalty to the US, should be treated more favorably than captives who are citizens of Saudi Arabia/Egypt/Pakistan/Emirates/Kuwait/Qatar/Afghanistan/Libya et al. If somebody has evil intentions towards the US, such as mass murder, then whether or not he's a US citizen should be immaterial. If it's legit to assassinate a non-US citizen because he is an enemy combatant, then it should be equally legit to assassinate a US citizen for the same reason.
It's different to argue whether it's legitimate to assassinate anybody - I do think that it is, particularly for enemies. But if one agrees that it is, then it's either hypocrisy or jingoism to argue that US citizens should be treated any differently from foreign citizens in terms of anti-terrorist operations. For those who argue that it is not, and that terrorism is a mere law enforcement issue, any country that adapts that posture is sealing its own disintegration.
Maybe it would be helpful to get an actual memo from Obama's administration? I am not saying it doesn't exist, but the headline here is rather misleading if this is a white paper from the DoJ to senators. It doesn't show any connection to Obama in this case.
The American government has strayed so far from its own guiding principles as to be rapidly becoming everything they're fighting against.
All of this claimed moral superiority of the last century or so is mostly lost, and you're fast becoming tyrants and asshats.
I give it a few decades at most before modern society collapses and we're either living in the cyberpunk dystopian future, or the Mad Max dystopian future.
When America starts killing her own citizens, complaining about other countries doing the same thing is a joke.
You're working on being worse than the cold-war era Soviets ever were. The Constitution has become "whatever the president wants it to mean".
The fall of the empire is nigh.
From page 6 of the whitepaper:
"In the circumstances here, the interests on both sides would be weighty... An individual's interest in avoiding erroneous deprivation of his life is "uniquely compelling."...No private interest is more substantial. As the Hamdi plurality observed, in the "circumstances of war," ''the risk of erroneous deprivation of a citizen's liberty in the absence of sufficient process .. . is very real," id. at 530 (plurality opinion), and, of course, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of a citizen's life is even more significant.
"But, ''the realities of combat" render certain uses of force necessary and appropriate," including force against U.S. citizens who have joined enemy forces...
"In view of these interests and practical considerations, the United States would be able to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen, who is located outside the United States and is an operational leader continually planning attacks against U.S. persons and interests, in
circumstances: (1) where an informed, high-level official of the US Gov't has determined the target individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) where a capture operation would be infeasible-and where those conducting the operation continue to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) where such an operation would be conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles."
Also, try to remember the SOURCE of the commentary. Reason.com is one of those very partisan places (though not as bad as the Free Republic) that produces and distributes highly questionable material with the intent of "stirring up the base".
I wonder if Obama will find the people at NBC who are responsible for this leak and give them the same inhumane torture as other recent whistleblowers have gotten?
for much of the rest of world to think that US is going even more nuts:
a - murdering with drones, collateral murders don't matter, no court system/laws involved, no war declared (endless war), getting more pissed off, keep the mill going
b - TSA shows at airports
c - 2-class humans - NON-Americans, Americans perceived as arrogant/bullies,
(leaving the Israel/nuclear/Iran next theater show out)
That should be clear enough for every one whether he/she is a US citizen or not...
I don't remember the fellow's name but a Muslim Imam found a way to use certain passages in the Koran to allow fundamentalist Muslims to define other, usually moderate, Muslims as infidels and subject to the same rules of jihad as non-Muslim infidels. This allows the fundamentalist Muslims to assassinate the moderate Muslim without suffering the eventual penalty of having killed a fellow believer. It seems that this is similar in that the government is pursuing a path that allows them to define certain citizens as enemies to the state, starting with citizens outside the country but eventually anywhere in the world including within the bounds of the United States.
If you thought the witch hunts of Salem or the search and persecution of communists in the past were bad then you haven't seen anything yet.
In other news, the US government and local law enforcement agencies have ordered 450 million rounds of hollow point ammo to be delivered in the next few years. If these are for use overseas then the local police and FBI wouldn't need them.
So does the Govt have to prove the said person did whatever they did which led to their relinquishing citizenship?
This is all nonsense. By most people's reckoning and the US Government's own declaration, every Confederate killed at Antietem or Gettysburg was a US Citizen. By what legal authority did the Federal Government kill them? Shall the ACLU and their decendents sue the Government for killing them without due process?
Oh wait.. they were in open rebellion and waging war against the Republic. Citizens who join Al-Qeda are in open rebellion and are waging war against the Republic. The simple fact is, when you join the enemy and wage war, you can be killed. War is War. No convoluted legal reasoning is needed to kill the enemy in war. If you think otherwise, your mind is clouded with nonsense and you are lost in non-reality.
... plenty of German-American citizens living in the US flue back to Germany and fought against American forces.
My grandparents were a part of that community and I never heard of such a thing. Grandpa, uncles and cousins earned a few silver and bronze stars in the process in fighting in WWII. They were Lutherans and Catholics, btw.
Hitler was an asshole who pissed off a lot of people and, as far as my family members were concerned, even if Hitler wasn't in charge, they'd still be Red, White & Blue Americans (i.e. US citizens; sorry, everyone else in the Western Hemi) because they believed in America! and passed that down to us throughout the generations.
If you want a proper trial, simply present yourself at the nearest major international airport and I'm sure the US government will be happy to bring you home for one.
If, however, you know your government kills members of foreign terrorist organizations living in certain lawless areas of the world, and you publicly declare your support for such a foreign terrorist organization, and then move to such an area of the world to associate with members of that organization, don't be surprised when a missile lands on your head.
There are certain definitive actions an individual can take where we know they have decided to give up their due process rights. For example, in World War II, if you traveled to Germany and put on a German uniform, you got treated as an enemy combatant, not a US citizen. No trial necessary.
When the belligerents are not uniformed members of a state military power, under when can we assume a US Citizen has decided do not want to participate in due process? It is reasonable to assume that an individual in a terrorist camp in the desert of Yemen isn't interested in standing trial - they have, through their actions, obviously declared themselves an enemy combatant, by declaring and acting on their intentions to be one.
Choosing to avoid due process is not the same as being denied due process.
paintball
I'm no expert, but I assume driving or riding a supply truck in WWII Germany makes you a legitimate target for US fighters and bombers.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass
This can be taken more than one way.
The "pre-emptive" Nobel prize for peace given to him should be withdrawn, lest the prize itself become devoid of meaning, let alone prestige.
Here the Department of Justice concludes only that where the following three conditions are met, a US operation using lethal force in a foreign country against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force would be lawful;
This is not a memo on how to "assassinate" just any US citizen. Rather, it is a memo on how when lethal force can be applied to a "citizen gone bad" if you will -- if one could even call "a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force" a US citizen (see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481). What's really sad is that the memo is plastered with the NBC logo all over, making it hard to read. Given this, and the apparently lack of reading comprehension and cherry picking of words, it seems NBC was too eager to up their readership with bold claims of assassinations of US citizens.
Download it without having to sign in to Facebook here.
www.wavefront-av.com
Submit a "We The People" White House petition with a list of people we'd like to see offed? Like the Kardashians, Beyonce, the Phelps family, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, the Koch brothers, the entire roster of Fox News on-air personalities, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Dubya, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and of course, Donald Trump? Certainly we can come up with some kind of "imminency" for each that would qualify, right?
There's even more cause for condemnation of Obama on this score: The Bush policy was a stay at Gitmo until guilt or innocence could be determined. The Obama policy, in the case of about 2/3 of the people currently in Gitmo, is that you stay there even if you've been declared innocent (they recently shut down the office that was handling sending innocent prisoners back to their homes).
Oh, and you'll notice I call them prisoners. Calling them "detainees" was nonsense, when they've been locked up for over a decade.
I am officially gone from
"Al-Qaida" is defined as anybody against BIG BANKster interest. That drone could be in anybodys rear soon.
Some American citizens are Muslims. Think about it
Oh, lord, not this asshole again...
We get it, Chrisq - you're bigotted against Muslims. Good for you.
Now please do us all a favor and go take a long walk off a short pier.
His Nobel's Peace Prize is well deserved!
It will take people like you, voting against this kind of stuff, instead of everyone's current policy of constantly voting for it, every election, by a 99-to-1 overwhelming supermajority.
Congress can only impeach presidents for activities that go against what Congress wants. And even if a President goes against what Congress says they want, they can't really reasonably do it for things that Congress approved and encouraged (even if they felt bad about it, changed their mind later, or make up some other excuse). That's why it was so hilarious when people wanted Congress to impeach Bush .. over the useless expensive war that Congress authorized! ;-)
If you would like to live in a country where Presidents get impeached for this sort of thing -- where this is reasonably seen as struggling against the other branches of government rather than acting in concert with them -- then you need to start voting against Republicrats in Congress. Get people in there who will say "no, don't do that," instead "I demand that the president do that."
If you're not willing to do that (and to be fair, lots of people have lots of excuses for why they vote for Republicrats) then seriously: STFU about impeachment, treason, etc. Those are "advanced topics" for people to use after they've voted, in the event they don't get the government that they voted for.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Obama and his administration are worse than Bush and his administration ever were.
But please go ahead and attack me as a racist or whatever label you care to throw at me. Maybe you should send me to a re-education camp while you are at it.
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
I honestly believe that the exact same thing would have happened with McCain or Romney as president. I also think Bush would probably have done the same thing if he'd had the drones available at the time. I can't prove it of course, but i do feel the fact that a bipartisan group of Senators were asking for the criteria used to kill Americans rather than demanding that it not happen at all kind of supports the idea. For the same reason i don't think Obama will be impeached or even seriously criticized by Congress over this. (If all the Republicans get together and try to pass a law that would effectively stop things like this i would get behind them on this one issue. But it ain't gonna happen.)
I voted for Obama in both of the previous elections. I didn't vote for him because i honsetly thought he would Change anything. One can always hope, but i didn't believe it would really happen, so i wasn't that disappointed when it didn't. I voted for him because i believed he wouldn't do _most_ of the things the Republicans said they wanted to do, and _maybe_ he'd actually manage to do one of two good things. And that's pretty much what happened. He's managed to do a couple things i view as good, and _mostly_ hasn't done the things the Republicans said they wanted.
I would rather have had a president who didn't do _any_ of the crappy things i believe the Republicans would do, but realistically there was no way to achieve that. In game theory terms i got the best outcome (from my perspective) that was possible under the current system. Under any kind of instant run-off system Obama would not have been my first choice. He might not even have been my second or third choice.
And both the Republicans and the Democrats know they can get away with a lot of crap exactly because of the two party system. "What are you going to do, vote for the Greens or Libertarians instead? Ha ha, go ahead, see how well that works out for you."
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
I don't think you'll find many libertarians who believe they live in a free country.
Define "Freedom".
Some folks think freedom is just riding a motorcycle or owning some mass produced, stamped steel piece of shit assault rifle.
Others believe it is to do what the fuck they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
And there are others who think they can do whatever they want on their own land - even if that means down the road it hurts others. - like dumping toxic waste on their land that eventually poisons the water table.
Where Libertarianism fails: the commons. (See the sea)
The rules for assassinating American citizens were one word? "Don't" I was going to end with a pepperidge farm joke, but this isn't a topic for levity.
Some American citizens are Muslims. Think about it
Oh, lord, not this asshole again...
We get it, Chrisq - you're bigotted against Muslims. Good for you.
Now please do us all a favor and go take a long walk off a short pier.
Realistic, not bigoted. Muslim clerics self-proclaim their aim to destroy democracy, end equality and replace Justice with a system where non-Muslims cannot testify against Muslims. Many other Muslims try to enforce this with acid attacks against unveiled muslims, bomb attacks against unbelievers, and so on. Those idiots who think that a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist are as likely to riot and kill if someone burns a book they like, or throw acid in the face of someone who dresses in a way they find provocative are the idiots.
...as if the neocons weren't just as much part of this, and only playing it like that because they are in the opposition, and to them *everything* is "Obama", especially the stuff that didn't happen because they filibustered it.
There are no "sides". It's all the same. Reps, Dems, Neocunts, "Socialists", it's all just made-up differences to keep you distracted and hateful.
There is no democracy. They all work for the corporations. End of story.
This is a corporate thing.
Why just the Senate? there are members of the House that should have also made the list...
Look at all the 1D10T models that have posted on this. Why is it "Obama's rules" when it is a policy that has carried from Nixon administration to present.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, nor do I typically give a damn about politics. For the most part, I like Mr. Obama. However, combining this with the changing gun laws just sounds down right marshal law-like.
Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
Just like the Rule of Law, colors don't mean anything anymore.
So What? They still exist and some branch of our goverment must deal with them. Leadership of an army located outside US soil is not going to turn themselves over to a trial. Do you want a show trail where the accused is convicted without them being present? Do you want Congress to vote on who we assasinate? Some sort of assasination warrent process where the courts approve assasinations proposed by the president? None of those is legal.
Impeachment:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/impeach-president-obama-unconstitutional-execution-united-states-citizens/Rdq942HF
Judging by the slug in the URL:
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass
Whoa! Prez got back!
"Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
- Deep Thought
Elect a woman as President; problem solved. She probably wouldn't want it anyway unless she was a simple puppet like Palin or Bachman.
So the President has given the DoD the power to kill a US citizen abroad who is threatening US lives, and can't be safely captured? Our cops already have the power to kill US citizens in the US who are threatening US lives and cannot be safely captured (arrested). That's why cops carry guns. If you are threatening someone's life, they will arrest you if they can, and kill you if they must. If this document is genuine, it is giving US citizens abroad rights similar to what they would have here. In either case, the rule is simple: surrender the gun (or IED, or strike force), and nobody gets hurt.
I am not a fan of our current President, but this is a sane policy. If we don't claim the right to kill US citizens under these circumstances, we give them more powers to kill us than they had when they were within our borders. If a US Al-Qaida member doesn't like being on a US hit list, they can come out with their hands up, just like any other suspect.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't walk and text.
Welcome, Comrades! Welcome to the glorious Union of Soviet Corporatist Republics!
Yes that was the Bush policy, except you couldn't see a lawyer and you would never actually get a trial (maybe a military tribunal aka kangaroo court)
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
We Americans spend a great deal of time getting around and re-interpreting our constitution to suite our whims.
* Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
* Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
How can anyone defend this? I don't care what side you are on politically this is flat out wrong. This is not how America is supposed to lead the free world. We pride ourselves on our laws and how each American citizen has rights. This memo takes away those rights without any oversight or review. I can't believe anyone on here would support such an egregious breach of our rights. Yes, maybe some terrorists who are intent on harm will be killed, but we will never know if they were or not because they don't have to tell us and of course there is no trial, no evidence and no judicial review. Is this what we call a democracy? The question being, "What do we want this country to be?". We can't lead the free world if don't follow those ideals which we espouse to. Indifference, denial and willful ignorance will be the downfall of this country. Right now we are the frog in the frying pan. Do we hop? Or do we die?
Why the secrecy then? Why not legislate for this type of killing out in the open if it's all so reasonable and dandy?
Mistakes happen. Death is irreversible. Oopsies, sowwy.
Besides, the Global War on Terror is open-ended, the battlefield is everywhere.
And one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
And ... finally, who trained Osama Bin Laden - former head of al Queda - so conveniently disposed of without a day in court, hmm? Oh yeah, fealty is so fickle ... Might makes right, nothing to see here, move along, say ... you sound sympathetic to the enemy, don't want to end up on our list now ...
Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
Please link to the original version of the story, rather than a more politically biased magazine's reporting on the original version of the story.
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite
Reason Magazine is the libertarian Huffington Post. I know you like to think that your political view is smarter and more reasonable than others, and you love to have a trillion people pigheadedly arguing that they're right and everyone that disagrees with them is stupid, so you can go through the comments and cherry pick the 'zingers' that reinforce your world view, but it's a meaningless exercise.
A few observations:
Some people, with reasonable cause, do not trust Obama. Their suspicions have been vindicated.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Small nit. As I understand it, one of the main reasons the US is not returning people declared innocent back to their homes, is that those countries don't seem to want them back, and we don't want them here, and we haven't found a country willing to take them... Therefore... That's where we stand today.
For example, apparently 40 were cleared for release by Bush Administration, and another 47 were cleared for release by the Obama Administration. Of those 87, 23 are known to be from Yemen. Yemen has apparently demanded payment of $200M to repatriate their citizens, but the US has only offered $20M to Yemen. In contrast, nearly all of the 133 Saudi detainees that had been cleared for release have been returned to Saudia Arabia during the Bush Administration.
It is not known much about the situation with the other detainees, but many assume similar negociations with other countries for their repatriation have been stalled on similar issues (mostly monetary). I think of it as a reverse-ransom. That isn't an excuse for continuing to hold them, but it is apparently one of the big reasons.
ALL of human interaction is trust based. Once you realize this, it gets much easier.
Every single construct of humanity is based on trust of the parties. Where trust does not exist, we create additional parties to verify the conditions. And we then must trust that those additional parties are trustworthy, else we set up yet another layer of verification. It's turtles all the way down.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You are imminent. We are imminent, together all along.
(infinite repeat)
The policy makes no distinction between outside the US versus inside the US. Therefore, it is only a matter of time before we see drone strikes inside US borders against US citizens becoming commonplace.
"power to kill a US citizen abroad who is ACCUSED OF threatening US lives and cannot be reasonably captured"
FTFY
It is implied also that said citizens will not submit to questioning or interrogation voluntarily, as is also the case with those same "problem" citizens in the US who are accused of a crime.
Actually, I wish I hadn't commented on this thread earlier, as the GP post may be the most insightful of the entire thread.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I don't understand the above statement. Obama is the democratically elected comander in chief. This memo that leaked was a memo to Congress. Congress is still democratically elected. Assasinating terrorists American or otherwise is hugely popular in the United States. Obama would not have been elected if he was against it. There is nothing paticullarly communist or capitalist about assasination either.
It's an investigative document, not a declaration of capability. Someone asked the question, "If we found an American terrorist who we know to be planning imminent action on the US, can we kill him?" and this white paper is the exploratory response.
It's the same as if your boss asked, "What would the costs of outsourcing business processes A-B and what are the expected benefits?" and then you responded with a 16-page report.
Kennedys and MLK. Why do you think they would hesitate anywhere else?
If Obama says "We missed you," it might not mean what you think it means.
It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.
Here are the key statements; read it and you will quickly learn that many people in the US government can issue the command to execute. The US citizen does not have to be in or on al quaeda base, and it does not have to be DOD forces.
"Here the Department of Justice concludes only that where the following three conditions are met, a U.S. operation using lethal force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaida or an associated force would be lawful: (1) an informed, high level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US; (2) capture is infeasible , and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles."
Clearly, Obama has become a constitutional violating ruler. Time to impeach his statist ass.
To get an insight into the original intent of the Constitution, one should look for a precedent in the Civil War.
Did the Union soldiers ever kill American citizens on the Confederate side without due process in the court of law?
I'm no fan of Reason, but can you elaborate on your claim that they produce and distribute highly questionable material? And what 'base' are you referring to? They are a Libertarian (beltarian, really) rag, and there isn't anything more to Libertarians than the base.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass I want to know his rules for ass!
Remember when pouring water on a detainee's face was unconscionable torture, circa 2007?
That sure leaves a lot of open territory.
Possibilities you might say.
Alternative explanations even.
In every thread on gun regulation, the 2nd amendment pops up (in defense of having guns).
And then, in threads like these, and many others on government mismanagement, commenters give up on changing the system.
"It's not possible!".
If you guys can't use the 2nd amendment to protect yourself from your government (and change it), then it really serves no foundational purpose to your country any longer. That means that the only purpose of freely available weaponry in the US is to keep their owners happy. Now ask yourself: are those the people you'd like to have weapons?
Seriously, get rid of the 2nd amendment. You're not using it anymore -- it can only be used against you.
Trooool!
Just thought you should know.
(Thump)
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Yes that was the Bush policy, except you couldn't see a lawyer and you would never actually get a trial (maybe a military tribunal aka kangaroo court)
Not to mention the fact that even if you were found innocent, you wouldn't necessarily be released from Gitmo! I remember my disbelief at hearing senior Bush administration lawyers testify under oath that this was so: innocent verdicts would not mean the prisoner would be released. I knew then that the USA I grew up in and believed to be the best place in the world had long since begun to go bad. It's difficult to get all exercised over Obama's current failings, real though they be, the man is merely presiding over the festering corpse of a once great nation. The manner in which it rots seems relatively unimportant.
The destruction of the free republic of USA is classified.
Let's cut the crap about totalitarianism. Do you think Obama wants to be a despot? Do you think Bush did? The real issue here is that the America people have given their president a mission that he does not have the powers to complete. The world is changing. We can't declare war on our enemies anymore. We can't identify them by the colors they're wearing. Now we're directing our government to put down organizations that exist in many different countries and feature people of many nationalities (even American citizens!). Our institutions were not designed to fight this kind of war. We must design them. We should be passing a constitutional amendment that handles these sorts of situations. There should be a dialogue going on where we the people determine what values should be involved. We need new, big ideas for a new world. Unfortunately, we don't want to discuss big ideas anymore. Everything needs to be pushed away while we stick to talking points and bureaucracy. As a result, the president is making these decisions on his own behind closed doors. This is unacceptable. It's a shame too, because I'm sure we could reach a broad consensus. But until we're willing to have adult conversations about these things, our government will continue to change in the shadows.
Somebody give that man a Nobel Peace Prize.
The president is just a puppet in this game of power....we are ignorant to think this is a democrat and or republican issue....this is an issue of power and the powers that be....behind the scenes....I truly think they feel we are all fools....for one we non stop argue with each other about things that arnt even the true issue....so never any resolution. We are sheep being led to the slaughter!! This country was built upon a constitution that was written with the freedom of the people in mind....the government seeks to destroy that....so instead of arguing we need to stand together and stop being fools!
I didn't vote for the moron....TWICE. Heck, Bush was just about as bad....Homeland "Security", patriot act etc...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." Obviously, the question is how you determine an enemy.
If we do not like what you are doing, we kill you.
get the Brits to do that, and find out?
Certainly might help put this whole thing into perspective for the public.
Then again given the aftermath of 9/11 I think we've proven ourselves as a society too dense to notice.
"News flash: Absolutely no country on earth is "friends" with the USA. We're not "enemies", but don't think even for a second that anyone is "friends" with the USA.
You are necessarily tolerated. You're like the big, crazy-strong retarded kid in school. Absolutely nobody likes them, everyone makes fun of them behind their back, but if the kid comes up to you, you act as friendly as possible and go along with whatever, because the alternative is the retard losing it and beating you half to death."
That's you, USA.
Ah Slashdot where Americans mod the truth flamebait
http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/17z9pp/any_contact_with_the_chamber_floor_will_result_in/
Nah bigoted, you cherry pick the few bad apples and use them to paint every muslim as evil.
I really don't see why they couldn't submit it to a judge for rubber stamping. That is all the due process the constitution requires really. Basically convict the person of treason in absentia. And it really would be little more than rubber stamping but perfectly legal.
I do on the other hand have a little trouble with using a guided missile to target a low level PR defector that happens to be American. I in fact have trouble with targeting anyone that to a high degree of certainty has a direct hand in hostile actions. It's one thing to advocate and another to pull the trigger. But if I were in change and had some convincing intelligence someone was a direct participant I would have no problem signing a warrant for their death.
I also think that many such warrants should be public to give the person a chance to defend themselves and or turn themselves over.
I have no problem with assignation but there does need to be due process.
voted for this fruitcake.
Haaaaa Haaaaa!
The Constitution's fairly clear about it. "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." That's quite different from "decided by a high-level official".
On the other hand, if making war against Americans is treason, and you're using the US military to send drone strikes to kill specific American citizens who aren't convicted traitors, that's making war against Americans.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The decision-making authority isn't just in the hands of ONE man - the Justice Department's memo says that it has to be a "high-level official", with no footnotes about the definition of "high-level", so presumably it needs to be at least a FIRST lieutenant.... And while you're quite right about the "no checks and balances" part, there's no guarantee that Obama has always been involved, though he does officially have first dibs.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Nah bigoted, you cherry pick the few bad apples and use them to paint every muslim as evil.
Keep telling yourself that when they start imposing Sharia law in your neighbourhood.
Hope you fools who voted for the bum aren't targeted by him.
A certain rule of law for over 800 years just got put in the shredder by the big BO working overtime trying to justify what Bush (Woo) and now he himself has done. I expected the Bush 6 to go to war-crimes trials some sweet day. I guess there will be more than those 6. And to think THATS WHY Bush had to be succeeded by a "constitutional scholar"... never saw that coming, did ya?
When do these drone assassinations cross the line into genocide against the people of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it." -- Albert Einstein
Casteism
"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.” "
If this is allowable, then, so is armed insurrection. You can't have this kind of tyranny on the one hand without justifying the responce to it on the other. Self defence is not a one sided rule. It applies to all entities or it applies to none! The so-called "Justice" department should seriously consider the powers they give to themselves in light of the nature of "official" powers. All branches of any governement derive their just powers from the mandate of the people, and they do NOT get them exclusively. The power MUST be pre-existant in people in general if any one in government is to be granted any power at all.
By "justifying" their own attacks without due process of law, they are making themselves targets of the same kind of attacks without due process. They open the door for a pre-emptive strike by the people whom they themselves target as enemies.
When the people become the targets of the government, the government becomes the target of the people. If peace is to reign, then the government cannot be acting as a tyrant on it's own people. The government belongs to us, the People, not the other way around!!!!
Obama is ushering in world peace. He has, as he promised, "the most transparent administration in history." Furthermore he has said, "there is no black or white, no red or blue states." He is just, merciful, kind, and his opponents are all racists.
This situation with it's lack of clarity represents us, it is up to us to get it straight. If you believe there really are 3 branches of government with checks and balances then that is what must be used to square constitutional rights, due process, the rule of LAW, the "war on Al Queda and affiliated jihadists" and the very poorly defined situations where innocents being killed are accepted without concern. Prior to 2001, US values of democracy, free press, relatively fair elections, rule of law, an open and secular society presented impossible challenges to anyone making an argument for societies based on religious extremism. On the whole, we had the moral high ground and pointed to a direction that had broad appeal. And it was reflected in the national spirit, despite our problems we were evolving to a better nation, more advanced, technologically and socially. After the attacks, we changed and lost much of that. We have to regain the moral high ground, not by returning to the earlier niavete, but by adjusting, correcting, getting out of this "ends justifies means" mentality, we need a return of the rule of law, unbiased oversight, transparency and standards. It can be done, Congress, the courts, lots of media attention and discussion, it still can be brought back. An old saying " if you must be the devil to fight the devil, the devil has already won." Without these changes, we will have defeated ourselves and they will have won.
Government assassinations? They've been happening since governments were first formed. All of a sudden
there's a whole slew of dainty little flowers who want to pretend that there aren't really bad people
out there and opt for sending nastigrams to such people via email or Social Networking and pretending they
will just go away. Unfortunately, most terrorists, especially those acting from a so-called "religious"
zeal would like to kill you and your entire family, your neighborhood, city or country and laugh about it.
"But they're AMERICANS!"
Right. Americans who want to kill you and your entire family, neighborhood, city or country.
For that they deserve a special pass, because we all know that they can't be bad because they're "Americans".
Anyone who lives on the North American or South American continent is an American. It's just a label. A
person's true nature is revealed by their actions, not a label applied to them.
"But what about the Rule of Law?"
While the Rule of Law is an amazing and desirable standard to live by, it unfortunately won't shield you
from someone shooting at you or detonating an explosive device next to you.
We should be capturing them and bring them to trial!
Wasting resources and possibly MORE lives attempting to hunt them down in the far corners of the world.
Exactly how many other people have to die to make killing them an acceptable option? Are YOU willing to be
a victim? How about a family member? A friend? Whom are you willing to sacrifice in the terrorist's place?
What about "collateral" casualties?
What about them? The people who allow the terrorists to live amongst them know who they are and what
they do. Do you think they give one iota of thought about you and your family, friend, coworkers, neighbors and
so on who are killed when the terrorist's bomb goes off or they mow people down with a machine gun?
We depend on our government to protect us and to do what is necessary for that cause. If you don't like it,
your choices are to vote in a different government, fight the government or leave the country. Everyone will have
to accept that the world isn't a perfect place and is only going to get more dangerous, or continue to live in their
self-imposed la-la land until reality comes knocking on their door. By then it will probably be too late.
"You freedom-loving libertarians need to understand this concept. It really is a flaw among you libertarians to think that you somehow live in a "free" country. No, you do NOT live in a free country. You never have. Try breaking a law, and see how much freedom you have."
So the term strawman describes a case where a proposition is made in rebuttal of a claim that was never in fact put forward by the opponent. That isn't what this is; this is attacking the very opposite of the position of the opponent and declaring him defeated. It is so absurd I feel like I am in the twilight zone reading it.
Libertarians are acutely aware of how much violent control threatens us. It is their opposition, statists, who are deluded about the nature of this violent system we are suffering under. To say it is a flaw in the thinking of libertarians in that they are not aware of the statist culture that surrounds us is like saying it is a flaw in thinking of atheists in that they are not aware that there is no god. Do you see how insane that is?
Nothing has pleased me more than to know my government will put a rocket up the ass of someone trying to kill me and my family.
I like us all going to work and coming home.
Thank you men and woman who take the battle to them.
When you are covered in sand sweat and bad guy brains, we are snug in our beds and am happy to allow you any and all air support to kill anyone who tries to take that from us.
The death paper has loopholes you can drive a truck through.
Where this is going is that computers will decide the country would be better off without you (based on network analysis, plus all your miscellaneous data trails), and have you killed without human intervention, under some secret, fuzzy White House authorization. You won't need to do or intend anything wrong.
People will wise up that privacy is important again, as it can save your life. We need space to think and explore, without asking what could get us killed by displeasing some inscrutable Big Other.