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."

37 of 800 comments (clear)

  1. Oh, the surprise. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Oh, the surprise. by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, but it's no longer 'clandestine'. We can do it out in the open in broad daylight, and nobody will raise a finger to stop it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Oh, the surprise. by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Governments involved in clandestine assassinations against their own citizens is a fairly rare and outrageous event in a democracy, I assure you.

      I'd think it would be easier to issue a presidential edict saying that anyone who swears allegiance to Al Qaeda also renounces their American citizenship. Then you can kill them as foreign enemies without compunction. I don't know why they'd go to all this trouble to justify killing Americans, unless they wanted the ability to do it on a larger scale.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    3. Re:Oh, the surprise. by Applekid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not supporting Obama's policy but I don't think this is as evil as everyone is making it out to be. Our country is theoretically "at war" with Al Quada as an organization (whether that makes any sense is a whole other tangent). During World War II, plenty of German-American citizens living in the US flue back to Germany and fought against American forces. We didn't need due process to kill them on the battlefield. Whether you're an American citizen or not, if you're on foreign territory and pose a threat to our armed forces, there's not a large legal barrier to killing you.

      Sure, there's nothing wrong with his policy. Until some faceless bureaucrat pops your name on some list and a sequence of different equally unaccountable government employees push buttons and gets you bombed by remote. When someone that cared about you objects, they're told that you were a terrorist, and they get on that list themselves.

      If the human race fails in it's rampage towards extinction for the next 500 years, we'll look back on this era as the second dark ages.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    4. Re:Oh, the surprise. by mrex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference is that in WW2, a German-American soldier on a battlefield wearing a uniform and holding a rifle left no question as to his purpose or allegiance. It was an unambiguous situation, akin to a police officer fatally shooting an armed suspect during a bank holdup. Sure, that suspect was never convicted of a crime, but they were *right there firing a weapon at officers*.

      What we're talking about now with these assassinations is much more like the police showing up at someone's home, breaking the door down, and shooting them because the DA says they were responsible for a bank robbery earlier in the week. That's not really how it's supposed to be done, and the risks to innocent citiznes in such cases due to ignorance, mistakes, or malicious official acts is much higher. There need to be checks and balances around such enormous power to protect innocent people.

    5. Re:Oh, the surprise. by JWW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This issue has really far less to do with whether the targets are traitors or not and more to do with who is allowed to determine which Americans are and which Americans aren't traitors....

    6. Re:Oh, the surprise. by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't about what Obama's political opponents have done, its about his supporters being hypocrites.

      If Bush were president right now utilizing drones in the SAME EXACT MANNER as Obama, political opponents of Bush would be staging demonstrations in Washington with millions of people.

    7. Re:Oh, the surprise. by almitydave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These people have chosen to be enemies of the USA.

      So says the government that carries out their execution without trial, evidence, or conviction.

      ...The only real change here is that the DoD is actually targeting the terrorist bases WHEN American "citizens" are standing on them.

      Or when they happen to be out on the open road, not on a terrorist base.

      ...I have less of a problem with the government killing confirmed traitors while ENGAGED in plotting against the USA, in a foreign country, with other enemies. That's open and shut...

      Except if you read the article, that's not the case at all. An "imminent threat" now means: "recently involved in activies posing a violent threat...", so in other words, not imminent.

      You don't want to get blowed up, don't stand with the enemy.

      Also make sure that you're not falsely identified by an informant being tortured, and make sure that US intelligence makes no mistakes. I find your faith in the infallibility of the US government disturbing. Why do we even have trials with juries and evidence? I mean if the military (or police) know you're guilty, why waste time and resources? After all, American citizenship should have no bearing if someone says you're guilty, right?

      I understand if a citizen is killed in combat while taking up arms for the enemy - that's normal warfare - but a drone strike outside of combat based solely on the assertions of intelligence? Even if the intelligence is correct, and the target is a Bad Guy, it's still a violation of due process prohibited by the constitution, and becomes unchecked power of life and death in the hands of the executive branch. I would hope everyone understands why that's a Bad Thing.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    8. Re:Oh, the surprise. by PhxBlue · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This issue has really far less to do with whether the targets are traitors or not and more to do with who is allowed to determine which Americans are and which Americans aren't traitors....

      Here's a hint: If they're in an al-Qaida camp, and they're not hostages, then that means they've chosen to align with a group that wants to kill American citizens and violently overthrow the American government.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    9. Re:Oh, the surprise. by LateArthurDent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Back in the days of Cowboys and Indians, your only defense against "aiding the enemy" was to be as far away as possible. The US Army killed plenty of American citizens that lived with Natives...

      I don't understand. Typically we remember the mistakes of the past to avoid repeating them, not to justify making them again.

      I have less of a problem with the government killing confirmed traitors while ENGAGED in plotting against the USA, in a foreign country, with other enemies. That's open and shut...

      How does one confirm traitors? Is it not through due process? In fact, the US Constitution names very specific requirements for due process regarding treason. Article 3, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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."

      The military KILLS PEOPLE...

      The US military KILLS PEOPLE...who are not American citizens. Unless, of course, they've been engaged by said citizen.

      .. They don't arrest people.

      They are, in fact, required to take prisoners if their enemy surrenders. Article 3 of the fourth Geneva convention specifies that you cannot harm anyone who has laid down their arms and surrendered.

      This nonsense of picking up US Citizens, on US soil for things that may have happened, then shipping them OUT of the USA without trial was a much larger affront to the Constitution than this new procedure is.

      That would also be unacceptable, what's your point?

      You don't want to get blowed up, don't stand with the enemy. American citizenship has no bearing if you are actively engaged in planning WAR against the USA.

      If American citizens are collateral damage as a result of a strike on another target, that's a completely different story, and it would cover this situation. For you to specifically target an American citizen would require a trial. If, through due process, the citizen is found to be committing treason, Congress has the ability to define the punishment, which could be death through military strike. You can't skip the due process part, though.

    10. Re:Oh, the surprise. by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These people have chosen to be enemies of the USA.

      So says the government that carries out their execution without trial, evidence, or conviction.

      To add what I think is an important part to that "So says the government that is constantly making mistakes that carries out their execution without trial, evidence, or conviction.

      For me, the scary part isn't that the government is killing people. It's that said people don't get a chance to respond to the charges and get things straight. They put Ted Kennedy on a no-fly list. The senator. Transparency is important because they're terrible at their jobs.

      Government: "We have eyewitness testimony that you're a terrorist operative!"
      Bob:"What?!?"
      Government: "Yeah, Joe said you were building a dirty bomb you were going to detonate in a crowded area."
      Bob: "Joe is just mad because I stole his girlfriend."
      Government" "... Oh... well, dick move, but we're not going to kill you for it. I guess we probably should have asked Joe why he reported you. Or taken that facebook status update where he says 'going to report Bob to homeland security for stealing Staci' into consideration."

    11. Re:Oh, the surprise. by Ironchew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      American citizenship has no bearing if you are actively engaged in planning WAR against the USA.

      Actually, yes, it does. Sorry to burst your authoritarian bubble there, but U.S. citizenship and due process are not things the U.S. government can remove without consent. If you hear otherwise, the U.S. government was doing something outrageously illegal.

      The War on Terror is deliberately blurry to the point that any organization suspected of subversion can be considered an enemy. Even if they aren't citizens, does that make it just? You live in a fantasy world where the U.S. government can do no wrong.

    12. Re:Oh, the surprise. by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's a hint: If they're in an al-Qaida camp, and they're not hostages, then that means they've chosen to align with a group that wants to kill American citizens and violently overthrow the American government.

      While I do lean towards your sympathies....do you really feel comfortable to that decision being in the hands of ONE man, with no checks and balances, as it has happened so far with President Obama?

      Frankly, that bothers me. And right now...this decisions isn't limited to someone who is a traitor to the country standing on an enemy base at a time of war.

      I want to make sure there are checks and balances...and openness so that this can not devolve into one man calling for a 'hit' to his perceived enemy in the US.

      There's nothing in the rules so far that I see that even come close to prohibiting this.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re: Oh, the surprise. by Urza9814 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One problem: this isn't about wars. This is to justify strikes in places like Pakistan (currently one of the most common) and areas of Africa (upcoming) where _we are not at war_. Therefore these are "police actions" carried out unilaterally by the executive branch.

      How would you feel if the Queen of England decided that she personally had the right to execute anyone in America today, without charge, without trial, without our government's consent, and without a declaration of war? Replace the Queen with Obama and America with Pakistan and that _exactly_ the situation we have here.

  2. clear and present danger by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:clear and present danger by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People do care. Remember the Torture Memos of Yoo? That really got people upset about lawyers. Other than Yoo. And no one in the administration. Really, anyone who would challenge our ability to torture. Well, anyway, people got upset about something.

      The ENTIRETY of the Obama presidency has been a demonstration by Democrats that they didn't disagree with GWB's policies, they merely hated the man and used his policies as a foil. Obama's entire first term was marked by the egregious continuation of every civil rights violation GWB envisioned, but amplified, and Democrats said nothing, unless it was to label a person asking serious questions as "racist."

      If the past four years is any indication, Obama has nothing to fear from "progressives" -- and I say that term with absolute disgust, because "progressive" is just code for Democrat right wing neocon bastard pretending to be a peacenik. Which in my world is worse than Republican right wing neocon bastard not pretending.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:clear and present danger by neurophil12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The ENTIRETY of the Obama presidency has been a demonstration by Democrats that they didn't disagree with GWB's policies, they merely hated the man and used his policies as a foil. Obama's entire first term was marked by the egregious continuation of every civil rights violation GWB envisioned, but amplified, and Democrats said nothing, unless it was to label a person asking serious questions as "racist."

      If the past four years is any indication, Obama has nothing to fear from "progressives" -- and I say that term with absolute disgust, because "progressive" is just code for Democrat right wing neocon bastard pretending to be a peacenik. Which in my world is worse than Republican right wing neocon bastard not pretending.

      That is an enormous load right there. There has been substantial push-back on this and other issues from the progressive community for years. Do you ever check out the ACLU efforts, articles on the Huffington Post and Rolling Stone, and reporting and discussion on The Young Turks or Democracy Now? And those are just the ones I actually check out every now and then. Obama is not nor has he ever been a progressive, and he's also never been a "peacenik". Do you actually know any progressives, or do you just read about them on Fox News or in articles linked by the Drudge Report or on NewsMax? Disgust can go both ways.

      Unfortunately there are many issues that have taken up all the oxygen in the political landscape and made this particular issue one that just ends up largely ignored. It's easy to see why given that the Republicans are more than happy to have this sort of policy in place, and many Democratic representatives are (as usual) afraid to make hay (and of course some just don't care). Perhaps more importantly, it is even more difficult to challenge the president of your party when the other party is vehemently and religiously against your president and party just for existing. I do hope some Dems, and others, challenge the president on this and force him to work through the Congress to produce legislation with oversight and accountability, and I will be writing my reps (again), but I also won't be holding my breath.

    3. Re:clear and present danger by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the anti-war crowd party is being silent because THEIR guy is in power...

    4. Re:clear and present danger by atomicdragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      2. He is signing executive orders for gun control rather than letting Congress make laws.

      You complain of people being delusional and yet make such a stupid mistake as this. Which executive order and which action within controls guns? He's issued orders telling people to review polices and internals rules, to discuss and analyze the implications of various things and to share information or promote something. None of that is overriding Congress's laws or creating laws or new gun control without Congress. To be so disconnected from reality, you expect others to listen to what you say and trust your judgement of others' grip on reality?

  3. Impeachment by C0R1D4N · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Impeachment by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Impeachment might be seen as a serious option if it hadn't been brought up about a 100 times by partisans since 2008. "Wolf" has been cried too many times.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    2. Re:Impeachment by scubamage · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sadly this is true. This would be a golden moment for the right side of the house to start flipping out. However, they've cried wolf too many times whining about socialism and birth certificates.

    3. Re:Impeachment by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Impeachment might be seen as a serious option if it hadn't been brought up about a 100 times by partisans since 2008. "Wolf" has been cried too many times.

      Since 2008? You've either been living in a cave or are wearing a seriously impervious set of bias blinders. It's been a favorite weapon of partisans since *at least* opening years (and the multiple scandals thereof) of the first Clinton Administration, and has only gotten worse since then. During the 2000-2008 Bush Administration, it was practically the only plank in the position of opposing partisans.

    4. Re:Impeachment by thoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right... but the point is look at the investigative time and effort put into even putting Clinton is the position of being able to commit perjury.

      Then look at the similar effort put into bringing Cheney or Bush up for malfeasance concerning the Iraq War, exposing Plame as a CIA employee, hell any number of other things. Republicans so quick to crucify Clinton apparently lost their principles when it was their guys doing far worse.

    5. Re:Impeachment by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here are some presidential statements now known to be lies. Which one is the most serious crime? Which one is the least serious crime?

      1. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." (Body count: 0. US crimes committed: 0. War crimes committed: 0)
      2. "You must pursue this investigation of Watergate even if it leads to the president. I`m innocent." (Body count: 0. US crimes committed: several. War crimes committed: 0)
      3. "There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction." (Body count: 600000. US crimes committed: several. War crimes committed: several)

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  4. If there is no oversight.... by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"
  5. Well, who would be the replacement? by popo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 : )
    1. Re:Well, who would be the replacement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're a conspiracy nut. And sadly, you're completely right.

  6. Come on we put up with gate rape by TSA, by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. "it isn't real, you are a flake" by Spectre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"
  8. Re:And they said by HaZardman27 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And you're just a waste of oxygen if the best response you can come up with is "It's unlikely that you and your guns can stop tyranny, so you shouldn't have your guns."

    --
    Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
  9. Re:Your best bet is to by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    In summation:

    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  10. Re:Your best bet is to by flaming+error · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think you'll find many libertarians who believe they live in a free country.

    You can probably find many who believe this was originally intended to be a free country, and that it could become one by following the original design.

  11. Re:Enemies can be citizens or non-citizens by mapsjanhere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which is the crux of the matter. These people have NOT been stripped of their citizenship (which is a judicial process) but deemed unlawful combatants by (secret) executive decision. No due process, no "cease and desist" letter, your first hint "you're on the list" is a smoke trail moving rapidly towards your window. What is fine for a guy building bombs, but becomes very weak for someone making speeches on the internet.

    --
    I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
  12. Where Gov gets involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

  13. Re:Your best bet is to by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Jefferson opposed slavery so deeply that he remained a slave-owner (and slave-raper) for his whole life, while hammering out compromises to make sure others could do the same (including "sunset clauses to certain parts of slavery", aside from the "total ownership of another human being" parts). Obviously a fundamental commitment to the core of human freedom!

  14. Re:Your best bet is to by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    You completely miss the point with this statement! Tyranny never starts with the government using the military to impose its will on the people (though it sometimes reaches maturity that way). Tyranny starts with "brownshirts".

    The tool of the tyrant who is not yet firmly in control is unofficial (but government sponsored) armed gangs of thugs. They rely on terror and inability to resist to project power, but there are few people in modern culture willing to act that way. With an unarmed populace, 1-2% willing and eager to use violence to suppress dissent will win. But it only takes a similar number to be willing to fight back, to put themselves at risk when the browshirts come for their neighbors, and shoot the fuckers dead. Since most of us are not as brave as we'd like to be, that means you need ~20% of the population to be armed and have a strong moral compass, so that the bravest 5-10% of them actually act.

    That is possible. That works.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.