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."

28 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.

    10. Re:Oh, the surprise. by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      How about American Citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki? He was born in Denver, Colorado on August 26, 1995 at 1:16 PM. He was killed by an American drone strike in Yemen on October 14, 2011. He was 16 years old at the time. Does anyone have any evidence that this teenager posed an imminent threat to the US?

      Oh, yes, as Robert Gibbs said in an interview, it was Abdulrahman's fault that his father - who he hadn't seen in over two years - was an alleged terrorist. That's the threat he posed to America, and that's what justified killing him.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    11. Re:Oh, the surprise. by anagama · · Score: 5, Informative

      He was there because his family moved there. He was participating in a barbecue when he was murdered. He had been trying to find his dad for some time because he missed him.

      http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097899,00.html
      http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/

      News reports, based on government sources, originally claimed that Awlaki's son was 21 years old and an Al Qaeda fighter (needless to say, as Terrorist often means: "anyone killed by the U.S."), but a birth certificate published by The Washington Post proved that he was born only 16 years ago in Denver. As The New Yorker's Amy Davidson wrote: "Looking at his birth certificate, one wonders what those assertions say either about the the quality of the government's evidence -- or the honesty of its claims -- and about our own capacity for self-deception."

      And of Al Awlaki himself? He was killed because of his youtube postings. Freedom of speech, so long as you don't say stuff the Feds hate. That list of things the Feds hate? Sure to grow.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    12. Re:Oh, the surprise. by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We are all ignorant, that's for sure. Perhaps if the US government had given US citizens due process, as required by the Constitution, then we would know what Abdulrahman was doing over there, and whether he was an enemy combatant.

      And, even if Abdulrahman were taking up arms against the US [citation needed], and even if he weren't a US citizen, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 37, limits the punishment of anyone under the age of 18, specifically excluding capital punishment of the type that was meted out to Abdulrahman.

      Due process is an amazing thing. You see, the government isn't always right. Sometimes they accuse the wrong person. Certainly the man who launched the "Amerithrax" attack on America is an evil terrorist who deserves no rights, correct? Lucky for Dr. Steven Hatfill, we still had due process back then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hatfill

      Or how about the guy who bombed some trains in Madrid in 2004? They found his fingerprints on the bag containing the bombs. Open and shut case, right? Well, lucky for Mr. Brandon Mayfield, we still had due process back then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield

      And those are just US citizens! If we expand the scope of government fuckups to include foreign nationals, the list gets much bigger, much faster. Off the top of my head:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhdar_Boumediene
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Kurnaz
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Anvar
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Tourson
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Helil_Mamut
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huzaifa_Parhat
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emam_Abdulahat
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalal_Jalaladin

      All were alleged terrorists. They weren't delivering pizza (Boumediene in particular was a member of the Red Crescent, which is a lot like our Red Cross), but all were eventually proven innocent of being terrorists.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
  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 NewWorldDan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I care. It's why, among so many other reasons, I voted for Johnson. Obama and Bush have both committed impeachable offenses that absolutely dwarf Clinton's perjury. Throw in the stupidity of the Reagan/Bush years, and you've got to go back to Carter to find an honest president. And he was incompetent. It's a tough job to do with integrity and principle. And honestly, I would never ever want to be president.

    2. 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
    3. 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"
    1. Re:If there is no oversight.... by Loadmaster · · Score: 5, Informative

      Good question. You should have brought it up when the legislation was passed in September 2001. Here's the applicable language from the Authorization to Use Military Forced (AUMF):

      (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

      You see the "he determines?" The Obama administration didn't make that up, because it's currently valid law. And it will be valid law until it is defeated in court or repealed. Section (b) says the AUMF complies with the War Powers Act which is complete BS, and the AUMF in total is an over delegation of congressional power a la Chadha.

      But I don't make the rules.

  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. Step one: Prioritize Targets by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. The person who leaked this memo.
    .
    .
    .

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  7. 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
  8. Re:incorrect leftist BS by Loadmaster · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, sub-section 3 says "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state" which Al Qaeda is not a foreign state. This is the same reason we keep detainees in Quantanamo instead of prisoners of war or prisoners. The Bush administration claimed they weren't enemy combatants because they didn't fight for a foreign state (standardized uniform and all that). Number 7 is more applicable, because it allows citizenship to be stripped for "bearing arms against the United States." However, section (b) states that the burden to prove loss of citizenship is on the party claiming the loss not on the supposed, um, loser. That's basic due process. Essentially if the government said he was no longer a citizen they have to prove it first.

  9. 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.

  10. Re:Your best bet is to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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?"

    Yes. Actually taking out an entire army strike team is pretty easy with the right stuff. Full armor, It's not hard at all to injure the lot of them and then use them as bait to get more. Drones are zero effort to take down. 30-06 hunting rifle will down one in seconds. Or are you brain dead and think the US army drones are like what you see when you play Black Ops II.. Sorry kid. But a lot of hunters have guns that make the army's M16 a girly gun. I hunt bear and use a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.700_Nitro_Express 700 Nitro Round in my rifle. That round will kill someone in armor because it will be the same as a sledgehammer to the chest. Buddy of mine has a Barret 50. That will take out most helicopters and hit a target behind a brick wall by shooting through it.

    I suggest you look at how the Taliban has pretty much spanked the US army really hard in Afghanistan with only rocks and mules. In the USA there area LOT more resources for an uprising to decimate the Military and police. Plus you have the problem that it's hard to make a soldier kill his own family and friends, so the US army sent in against the American citizenry will end with a lot of officers accidently killed by grenades. In viet-nam officers were fragged by the troops quite a bit.

    So the fools like you that have zero education in history and negative education in combat or even firearm use have no clue at all.

  11. 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)