Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Leaked: Obama's Rules For Assassinating American Citizens

Posted by timothy on from the how-much-different-were-the-previous-tenants'-rules? dept.

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."

20 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 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....

    3. 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
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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."

    7. 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.

    8. 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.........
    9. 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 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.

  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. 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.

  8. 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)