Slashdot Mirror
Court Releases DOJ Memo Justifying Drone Strike On US Citizen
An anonymous reader writes in with news that the memo presenting a case for killing Anwar al-Awlaki has been released thanks to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Monday released a secret 2010 Justice Department memo justifying the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S citizen killed in a drone strike in 2011. The court released the document as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union to make the document public. Then-acting Assistant Attorney General David Barron, in the partially redacted 41-page memo, outlines the justification of the drone strike in Yemen to take out al-Awlaki, an alleged operational leader of al Qaeda.
"Alleged" operational leader. No trial. Bam! You're dead.
Welcome to Soviet USA.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
So it's actually possible to get a redacted memo on the reasoning behind killing a citizen in your country? Well, isn't that great?
...amendments to the Constitution?
Obama is turning out to be just as bad as the Neo-Cons when it comes to "protecting us from ourselves."
Loading...
Don't insult the CCCP so!
We at least had some rights and expectations!
Maybe not many at all but some!
Worse, actually. They never did this.
He is just one guy right? He is only the president right? And he is the good guy right? I realize Bush Jr. may have preceded Obama's circumventions of the constitution but isn't it time yet for the left to start calling Obama out for it too???
Ex post facto ex parte: We think you're guilty of a crime, so we're going to kill you and come up with the justification later.
[End Of Line]
Or you just never heard about it.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Racist idiot.
You mean he had brown skin so he was not a real citizen? If you support the killing of this man I happily support putting you in a cage for the rest of your life.
They did, actually.
The CIA killed a 'terrorist' despite knowing that a U.S. citizen, Kamal Derwish, was in the vehicle at the time.
Apparently before 2002 there was a 'secret finding' that you could assassinate U.S. citizens who the government believed were aiding Al Qaeda.
That f***ing a**hole Bin Laden won the minute we started destroying our own constitution.
Loading...
Why doesn't anyone use the correct term.
This is an interesting case.
First: "Attorney General Eric Holder last year outlined a three-pronged justification for targeted killings of a U.S. citizen who is a leader of al Qaeda: The suspect must pose an imminent threat, capture must be infeasible, and the strike needs to adhere to applicable war principles."
Hmm...
Imminent threat: IE People are going to be killed if we don't take him out. Same justification for killing a US Citizen(or anybody else) within the USA without trial.
Capture Infeasible: See the first sentence.
Adhere to applicable war principles: We would have already bombed his ass if he wasn't a US Citizen.
Now, avoiding the legality and ethics of drone strikes in the first place, I do not consider this to be an unreasonable standard. Delving INTO the ethics of drone strikes, I'd hope that all three criteria are applied to every considered strike, no matter what citizenship the potential targets(and collateral damage) hold. In addition, 'adhere to applicable war principles' probably leads to fewer bomb drops in my mind than what the administration might like.
Roughly speaking, it means that I don't consider 'US Citizen' some special category requiring extra-ordinary measures to NOT target for killing in war if said citizen is waging war against the USA. Instead I demand that such extra-ordinary measures be standard, no matter the nationality of the target. Of course, I recognize that politics will always be a concern. Hitting a British or German national in the Middle East for working with AQ will probably always involve at least a 'heads-up' call to the leaders of said nation.
I don't read AC A human right
Stupid idiot. You're the only one who mentioned race.
Or you just never heard about it.
So Bill Clinton had people waterboarded? Hey, I never heard about it.
Congratulations. You just manufactured the lamest "Blame BOOOSH!" strawman ever.
Well, if you live within 100 miles inside the boarder, you have no Rights anyway. Stands to reason it would be even more so outside the border.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
about striking an us citizen as opposed to say an Iraqi, an Albanian, a German, or a Mexican? They do not seem to have problems with most Arab countries. Not people? Not deserving a trial?
Are those parts, perhaps, untenable in some situations?
Example: If you're some sort of murdering loon with a predisposition to blow up schools in not-Americania where you have been living for several years, then...
If you're a "U.S. citizen", you should be captured alive and tried properly - in the U.S., of course - enjoy all the protections provided by the law, and if you're very lucky you get to be relatively comfortable while waiting to hear if you get to escape death row or - better yet - somebody messes up on a procedural element and you can be on your merry way entirely, with the general population hailing the virtues of the amendments that make this possible.
If you're not, then please enjoy these last few moments of Slashdot while we drop a bomb on you, no questions asked, with the general population shrugging or applauding once announced.
I find the whole "he was a U.S. citizen on paper, so he was more specialer" angle rather fascinating.
Do we at least get to vote on who we blow up with hellfire?
The memo cites case law to justify the suppression of 4th and 5th amendment rights. For example:
at least where high-level government officials have determined that a capture operation overseas is infeasible and that the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and is engaged in activities that pose a continued and imminent threat to U.S. persons or interests the use of lethal force would not violate the Fourth Amendment. and thus that the intrusion on any Fourth Amendment interests would be outweighed by "the importance of the governmental interests [that] justify the intrusion," Garner, 4 71 U.S. at 8, based on the facts that have been represented to us.
and:
In Hamdi, a plurality of the Supreme Court used the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test to analyze the Fifth Amendment due process rights of a U.S. citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and detained in the United States who wished to challenge the government's assertion that he was a part of enemy forces, explaining rbat "the process due in any given instance is determined by weighing 'the private interest that will be affected by the official action' against the Government's asserted interest, 'including the function involved' and the burdens the Government would face in providing greater process." 542 U.S. at 529 (plurality opinion) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)).
So if I'm reading this correctly, 4th amendment rights don't apply if the government deems that its interests outweigh yours, and 5th amendment rights don't apply if the the government deems that its interests outweigh yours or the government asserts that it would be excessively burdensome to give you due process.
The only reasonable interpretation of this is that the government of the United States has become exactly what the Framers feared: an utterly autocratic organization that asserts its own interests over and above the interests of citizens who may come into conflict with it.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
That f***ing a**hole Bin Laden won the minute we started destroying our own constitution.
So he won around 200 years ago? Our Rights have been eroding since day one :-/
What on Earth made you think he was not on that same team? The first term of "Hope and Change" was not enough to prove he is nothing more than a liar?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
How does this not violate the 5th and/or 14th amendments to the Constitution?
Short answer: They have stopped even caring about the pretense of observing constitutional limitations on government abuses of power.
I wouldn't blame Bush or Obama, however - The process started before the ink even dried on the constitution, though it didn't get really bad until Lincoln - that great cultural icon - took us on the first big downward slide with his suspension of habeas corpus. More recently, Johnson takes the credit for really pushing us over the edge of the "slippery slope", with Nixon merely enjoying the ride down... And don't think Bush the elder resembled your kindly old grandad back when he ran the CIA - Ford brought him in as an axe-man in the midst of a wiretapping scandal (which paled in comparison to the recent NSA revelations), and he successfully pushed all that nasty illegal business back underground so the CIA could go on to run the world narcotics trade in the 80s without any pesky oversight.
I wouldn't say "broken by design", except insofar as the founding fathers left one critical point out - Betrayal of the public trust while "serving" in any official government capacity needs to unwaveringly convey a death sentence.
And it will come to that in the next few decades, no doubt - I'd really rather prefer it not happen in my lifetime, but we can all see the dust-clouds on the horizon.
If you support the killing of this man I happily support putting you in a cage for the rest of your life.
Are you in the streets demanding the same consequences for President Obama? For any of his staff?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Not taking sides and I'm not an American nor do i live in the USA. Isn't your comment the same as what critics of the administration wanted to do to the recently repatriated soldier that was held hostage after allegedly walking away from his unit? Leave the guy there cause he took off. Assumption of guilt, death pretty much guaranteed etc.. I'm aware that the detainee trade is another aspect that angers people and I'm not trying to comment on that in anyway. Not trying to poison the debate, just an observation and maybe an oversimplification of the issue.
Cheers,
The PDF is interesting, but essentially boils down to:
Americans killing Americans is sometimes justified.
Stop cheering me up...
Loading...
They didn't come up with the justification later. They came up with it first. That's what this memo is. The justification.
The first term of "Hope and Change" was not enough to prove he is nothing more than a liar?
Sorry, Republicans handed him the perfect excuse so that objective parties will really never be able to know given they basically said f*** you to anything the guy even thought about irrespective of whether or not it was good for America...
Loading...
What's worse about him is that he also lied about it.
You can say about Bush whatever you want, but he was always honest about it. He was an asshole and he never hid it. Ok, one may argue that he was too stupid to hide it, but ... hell, is that all you may choose from? Is that all the US of A can get, either a dumb asshole or a sly one?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So you're saying we've reached a point where the government is no longer ashamed/scared enough to bother trying to hide or coverup their murder of US citizens?
I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Since when does a fucking bureaucrat, an acting assistant attorney general put some shit like this together and allows a capricious administration to decide who lives and dies, especially if they're a citizen of this country. Yes it was for our esteemed retard Eric Holder who ignores laws he doesn't agree with but that's beside the point. The US Military killed a US Citizen here without due process under the guises that it was "justified." Shit, If any of us tried that the judge would laugh at us and lock us up and throw away the key if we committed premeditated murder. True Anwar al-Awlaki could have been considered a terrorist but he still was a citizen of this country and by the governments labeling him a terrorist that now suddenly makes him a valid target? This sounds like Ruby Ridge all over again and I'm sorry I thought we were a nation of laws where the rights of the accused were protected. This administration has obviously gone way the fuck over the line here in this.
Go capture him, put him on trial but what gave this administration the right to start bypassing constitutional and civil rights afforded to all citizens? This is abhorrent.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
You can say about Bush whatever you want, but he was always honest about it
Honest about what? Why we should invade Iraq? That we aren't torturing anyone? That the CIA didn't mean to kill that American citizen?
Obama is a worse disappointment in this regard simply because everyone with half a brain should have known that as a Neo-conservative Bush would behave that way. Obama was supposed to be a return to constitutional principles. Now he might as well be making security policy with Cheney (there's a scary thought, lol...)
Loading...
Kamal Derwish was not the target. Did the CIA know he was in the car? Is George Tenet a neo-con?
OK, "honest" would be asking a bit much from a politician. Let's rather say he was "upfront" with what he had in mind.
Or rather, with what his advisers had in mind. I doubt there was much on his mind, actually.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Which means GOP never tried to legitimize their illegal actions, making it more difficult to follow suit in the future. Obama meanwhile wants to throw open the oppression floodgates.
Because it didn't happen in US jurisdiction. The constitution guarantees certain rights to people in the USA. Citizenship is irrelevant - it's just as unconstitutional to intern, say, a Japanese or a Saudi as an American citizen.
And conversely, if you kill someone in Yemen, you're not breaking American law, no matter who it is - anyone from the president down. You're breaking Yemeni law, which is a completely different kettle of enforcement.
Finally, this isn't nearly as unprecedented or radical as you're making out. Abe Lincoln authorised the killing (without trial) of tens of thousands of American citizens, on American soil no less. Does history condemn him for that?
According to the Washington Post the CIA knew he was in the car. Several news outlets report this (although that could be parroting the Washington Post); however, several early reports about the attack appear to show the CIA proud that they killed Derwish as well (although that quickly changed after people got wind that he was an American.)
Apparently there was a 'secret finding' making this ok back in 2001/2002.
George Tenet is a yes man.
Loading...
Perhaps we could settle for "incapable of subtlety"... ;)
Loading...
Nice job, skirting around the relevant points. If that's the best you can offer, then you failed to back up your original statement.
That IS a major turning point. There is a huge difference between occasionally killing people in secret and declaring that the government has the right to kill citizens without a trial. Secret killings need to be limited in number or they can't be kept secret. Once execution without trials is in the open, what limits the numbers?
Seems unlikely that the legal arguments presented will stand up to public legal scrutiny. I'm certainly not a lawyer. However, as I read the cited comments about weighing private vs government interests, the cited commentary doesn't appear to suggest that due process can be denied altogether. Rather, the commentary appears to discuss practical issues of war that might have the effect of delaying due process. Conveniently, the Obama administration lawyers failed to comment on the legal motivation behind the Bush era Guantanamo prisoner military trials. Namely, federal courts ruled that these prisoners had due process rights even though they were enemy combatants and despite the fact that they were not U.S. Citizens. Both the dates of the legal opinions and news reports describing the Obama administration legal review process clearly show that the Obama administration had ample time and opportunity to engage in judiciary. They just chose not to do so, apparently. Given this, the al Qaida dirtbag's constitutional right to due process was trampled. Personally, I have 0 sympathy for al awlaki, but clearly Obama signed off on an executive branch doctrine of extra judicial execution of American citizens that could be used to kill just about any American overseas. Asserting that a person is a member of a terrorist group and using that assertion as justification for that person's execution without providing external review and due process is nothing short of tyranny. Granted, if Obama had to violate some American's rights, he probably picked the right person.
Good new everyone!
All you have to do to claim your FREE drone strike is to simply mention the word "Allah" and criticize US policy in a comment below! It's that easy! Here at the Homeland Department, we've reduced the amount of government red tape you need to get a drone strike on your house. Annoying procedures like "trials" and "juries" have been removed -- saving you time and money!
But wait, there's more! Reply in the next 10 minutes, and we'll even throw in a 2nd drone strike for your family! That's right, two drones strikes for one comment.*
* Offer can only be redeemed in the Middle East. Offer void in Saudi Arabia. Some terms and restrictions apply. Must be 18 or older unless your parents signs up for the "family plan".
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
The government hides their dirty laundry when they are afraid you might find out. People hold back when they are afraid of getting caught. Now they are not afraid of you, so it doesn't matter if they get caught.
>If you're some sort of murdering loon with a predisposition to blow up schools in not-Americania where you have been living for several years, then... ...then you should be dealt with swiftly and harshly, but in accordance with whatever the laws of "not-Americania" happen to be.
The founding documents of the United States guarantee certain rights--even to rapists, terrorists, and pedophiles--to its citizens. In my opinion, it's probably best that this man no longer walks the earth. But that doesn't make it right for him to have been summarily executed. Much less his son who was also an American citizen, and a minor at that, when he was killed in a drone strike as well.
We interned Multi-generational Japanese Americans and German Americans and worse yet in many cases forced the camps to be on Native American reservations rather than Federal Land (some were, but the Rez's were considered more difficult to escape out of than any close-by federal land.)
It's not anything NEW, but it is something we've been told 'was long ago, and we're too civilized now to do again.'
I think you'll find that the US Constitution purports to _prohibit_ extrajudicial action regardless of the allegiance of the individual. The fourth amendment, even if construed to only cover "The People", when combined with the tenth amendment would imply that only state-actors or individuals are able to exercise extra-judicial power.
the "Because we say so." part.
You can't vote out the Gestapo.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
That's for after the election.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
You are the stupider idiot. Jorge (which is a traditional brown name btw) put the whole thing right out there in the open on a tee coming exactly up to the point of saying something racist but not. This is a traditional debating tactic and those of us who do this on a regular basis see it for what it is. You can claim technically correct all day but the smart folks around here know he's taking pot shots at middle easterners.
I think it's amendments that guarantee those rights - not sure if that invalidates the 'founding documents' bit.
But my question was specifically with regard to the "to its citizens" part. What makes "its citizens" all the more special, when it's rather difficult to see what qualifies a person as a "citizen" given the circumstances outlined.
So perhaps my interest should be more directed toward what makes somebody a citizen - and what can undo that making (apparently somebody suggested that in this case, the person had forfeited their citizenship by effectively having committed one or more acts of treason) - given that the interests appear to be at odds.
Even worse... I believe all international airports are defined to be part of the border.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
You should find it fascinating. Outside of moral grounds, there are bonds that empower the government of the US that also places limits on the government. One of those limits is the right to due process when you are in US jurisdiction. A US citizen is in US jurisdiction wherever they are. A terrorist or even a school teacher who looks like a terrorist in another country might not be. Put those same people in the US, and they have the same right to due process.
Now right may be the wrong words here. The bonds that empower the federal government, the Constitution, forbids the government from denying due process to "we the people" except in a narrow window in which habeas corpus can be suspended- but that requires custody of the person and does not allow extrajudicial punishment outside of holding a person.
So no matter how contrived they can make an excuse to execute a foreigner on foreign soil, the government is expressly forbidden to do so on a US citizen who has not been afforded due process or is not showing an imminent threat to others. Of course in one of these instances, it seems to be collateral damage. It would be like a cop shooting at a suspect shooting other people and in the process killing a citizen with a stray bullet 2 blocks away. Not a criminal act, but the state is still responsible.
It seems to me that they are saying in this PDF that the statute that prohibits them from doing this doesn't actually. which is pretty lame.
--Sam
Whenever this sort of thing comes up I always wonder ... was the Civil War unconstitutional? That also involved military action against US citizens, and presumably the Union didn't hold trials for each individual Confederate soldier before allowing anyone to shoot at them.
What are the significant differences, if any?
Anyone who bothered to check Obama's voting record should have known what he would do in office. The Republican Bush was succeeded by the Republican Obama, and nothing changed.
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. The United States--theoretically of course--does not violate the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights of *anyone*. That is, if you're a foreigner, even one in the country illegally, you are afforded due process just like any other citizen. But that's for matters occurring within the boundaries of the United States.
For the USA to kill a foreigner on foreign soil, I would say that constitutes an act of war, thus the laws of war (Geneva Conventions, et al.) should apply. In this case though, the USA killed someone on foreign soil, but he was technically an American citizen. A reprehensible one, and one who repeatedly had called for violence against Americans and their allies, but he was an American citizen. He was born in the United States and therefore was a citizen.
A person can renounce American citizenship, or it can be revoked, but neither of those things had happened. I've heard that in his various rants that seem to be why we wanted to kill him, al-Awlaki had verbally renounced his citizenship, but that is not the same (to me at least, IANAL) as actually going through the process of renunciation (I think you have to send them your passport and fill out a form explaining why you don't want to be a citizen of the USA anymore). It could be argued that he had de facto renounced his citizenship by his actions but that's something for a court to decide, and that's my problem with the whole affair.
Given how incendiary this guy seemed to be, it should have been very simple a matter to revoke his citizenship. But that never happened. Given that he was imprisoned in Yemen more or less at the behest of the United States, it should have been a very simple matter to try and convict him--even in absentia--for whatever crimes the US gov't thought it was worth drone striking him over. But that never happened. That we summarily execute anyone in the name of truth, justice and the american way or whatever nonsense was used as justification is an abomination to me. But it is especially worrisome to me that we are willing to do this to another American citizen, as we were supposed to be doing this in the name of preserving our way of life--a way of life that includes all those pesky rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
What happens in Yemen stays in Yemen
I.e. dumb asshole vs. sly asshole.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I fear the day when our administration can get away with this sort of thing openly.
Um, this is the first term where he had super-majorities in both house and Senate? Where they could have passed absolutely any partisan crap they wanted? How we got Obamacare?
What exactly would it take for the Dems to "own it"?
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Because it didn't happen in US jurisdiction. The constitution guarantees certain rights to people in the USA.
The constitution does not give the government the power to strip people of their rights once they leave the USA. You are wrong.
Abe Lincoln authorised the killing (without trial) of tens of thousands of American citizens, on American soil no less. Does history condemn him for that?
It should. Abe Lincoln was a tyrant that ignored the constitution and the courts multiple times.
But, as we all know, people in the "land of the free" don't actually give a shit about freedom, and would rather have 'safety'. That includes you, apparently.
What limits the numbers is the number of missiles in your inventory.
And these actions only breed further hatred from the populations they bomb, making more radicals all the time.
Since the 14th Amendment was ratified, effectively anyone born on US soil (except American Samoa) or who has gone through US naturalization is a US citizen. Likewise, most UK nationals are British citizens. To which non-citizen nationals are you referring?
I don't think you realize how pervasive and ambiguous that word means, nor the consequences it entails when put to action. Economy goes hand in hand with "freedom". This nation has never stopped marching to the beat of manifest destiny, it's only recently in history we've replaced "angels" with "economic interests". Those interests are something all us are a part of everyday, and not just the "rule-breakers" that we vote into office.
In a world compacted by globalization, "freedom" becomes the booty awarded from those economic endeavors of manifest destiny. The luxury and comfort afforded become synonymous with that "freedom" As long as we're okay with the freedom to extend our hands to foreign lands, okay with the freedom to do business with foreign peoples, and okay with the economy that all rewards us with, "freedom" becomes very much a part of our shared daily life.
But it's obvious that's not without consequences, our economy, our freedom, and the whole of the industrialized world's, is fueled by exploitation. You don't get the kind of luxuries and comforts of today without exploiting a few others. And you don't get away with that without upsetting some. Freedom is not without a tax. You'd have to be a fool to think any one can prosper in this world, that we all make daily, without exploiting others.
So, yes there are people who do threaten our freedom. Because that freedom comes with a cost. A cost that others must pay if you want to stay free e.g. comfortable, safe, prosperous, etc.
No? The most important thing to keep another 9/11 from happening is to stop deserving another 9/11 from happening.
Wrong this is wrong.
Even being born on Western soil does not make you American or British. Assimilating and accepting hundreds of years of our values and history makes you a citizen.
Otherwise all these people yelling "Allah" "Jihad" or "UK go to hell" are passport holders, nothing more.
Giving a straight answer to a straight question - 'the CIA thought he was in the car' - is skirting around the point on what planet?
No. The Washington Post said the CIA knew he was in the car. Other new agencies and the CIA said they did not know he was in the car. Nevertheless, he was not the target.
Which is.....drum roll.....wait for it....answering your question.
Newsflash: one of the CIA's central job functions is to lie.
Irrelevant. They knew he was there, and they killed him.
Yeah, yeah, we know Anwar al-Awlaki was an al Qaeda operative, but what about his son Abdulrahman? Why the fuck was he killed? What is the court justification for that?
If the alleged criminal is a US Passport holder, subpoena them to return to the US for trial. Notify them that refusal may lead to a renouncing of their citizenship. 3-6 months later, goodbye citizenship and the moral conflict is gone.
You might not like it, but at least no one should be surprised at the turn of events (the alleged criminal is warned in advance) and it gives them the opportunity to defend themselves in a civilian courtroom.
Ah, that good old marxist crap about eschewing "formal liberty" for "real liberty". It makes more sense to distinguish between positive and negative definitions of freedom.
Actually, you'd have to be a fool to believe that mass prosperity can ever be achieved and sustained by taking forcefully from others. Quite the other way around, and quite the opposite of your premise.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
I think you should try your president for treason and war crimes.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Common mistake, but the important thing to note is that he isn't being punished. He's being killed in the pursuit of war, authorized under article 1, section 8 of the constitution: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
As such "but did his involvement rise to the level of a capital crime? Is there even a death sentence for conspiracy to commit murder?" are two irrelevant questions. As a member of the opposing military faction that the USA is at war with*, there needs be no crime for him to be targeted and killed. That he's in a leadership position simply raises him to a level where 'servicing' him specifically is a military priority with the intent of disrupting command & control**.
*I know that actual declarations of war have been rather sparse for the last 50 years or so, but the actual authorization of military force by congress is there.
**Military speak for: Without orders the lower levels are unlikely to be able to perform coordinated actions which increase efficiency. Ergo, disrupting systems, from destroying communication abilities to the very ability to give orders(IE kill the leaders) is a method for furthering their objectives in the war.
I don't read AC A human right
State sanctioned murder without trial is a sign of a society in decline, the US is one of the the few powers to go from rise to decline without an intervening period of civilisation.
Yes.
How quaint. You appear to believe the two party system for selecting front-men has actual significance beyond a classic divide-and-conquer strategy by those in power.
I find the whole "he was a U.S. citizen on paper, so he was more specialer" angle rather fascinating.
The trouble is that US courts have no jurisdiction over foreign nationals on foreign soil. We can't try, for example, Kim Jong Un for negligent manslaughter.
Now, if the US were to live up to the spirit of its constitution, then it might try to facilitate legal action against criminal terrorists in courts that have jurisdiction. They could do this by providing evidence of crimes against the host nation, or crimes against international law, and providing location data to facilitate arrest by local law enforcement. To live up to the spirit of the constitution, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan each signed executive orders prohibiting political assassination.
That the last two administrations have felt the need to resort to extrajudicial action to "keep Americans safe" should be seen as a colossal failure of leadership and diplomacy. US citizens should be appalled that their government has forsaken the open rule of law in favor of assassination by remote-controlled bombs.
Then you didn't keep an eye on the Neo-Cons. Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and stripping the armed invasion of Afghanistan to go invade Iraq just so that we can lose in *both* countries? Forgetting all the lessons of Vietnam and Korea to even *start* in Iraq, and pissing away every victory in Afghanistan by doing so? Or conveniently selling weapons to one criminal government to get money to buy hostages from another criminal government and lie to Congress about it, or aren't you old enough to pay attention to Bush the elder and the Iran/Contra hearings?
As horrid as this was, at least these fools *talked* to the courts and found a legal excuse. They didn't fake a war or commit international crimes to pull this stunt.
They are the law!
Are you in the streets demanding the same consequences for President Obama? For any of his staff?
He's right there next to the group demanding the same consequences for Bush/Cheney and his torturers... oh wait, neither exists.
the real threat to your freedom is an ultra wealthy oligarchy that's been steadily chipping away at your wages for 40 years. More than anything else money is freedom, since if you're financially destitute you'll do what they say when they say. Dictator's don't oppress for the shear giddy joy of it, whatever the sci-fi books you read when in high school/college say. They oppress because they've taken a disproportionate amount of wealth for themselves and oppression and poverty is how you keep it.
I'd like to see us stop blaming a few well meaning bureaucrats and administrators for the horrors wrought by the ultra wealthy. Probably not gonna happen though, what with them controlling the media and all...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I don't think you realize how pervasive and ambiguous that word means, nor the consequences it entails when put to action. Economy goes hand in hand with "freedom". This nation has never stopped marching to the beat of manifest destiny, it's only recently in history we've replaced "angels" with "economic interests". Those interests are something all us are a part of everyday, and not just the "rule-breakers" that we vote into office.
In a world compacted by globalization, "freedom" becomes the booty awarded from those economic endeavors of manifest destiny. The luxury and comfort afforded become synonymous with that "freedom" As long as we're okay with the freedom to extend our hands to foreign lands, okay with the freedom to do business with foreign peoples, and okay with the economy that all rewards us with, "freedom" becomes very much a part of our shared daily life.
But it's obvious that's not without consequences, our economy, our freedom, and the whole of the industrialized world's, is fueled by exploitation. You don't get the kind of luxuries and comforts of today without exploiting a few others. And you don't get away with that without upsetting some. Freedom is not without a tax. You'd have to be a fool to think any one can prosper in this world, that we all make daily, without exploiting others.
So, yes there are people who do threaten our freedom. Because that freedom comes with a cost. A cost that others must pay if you want to stay free e.g. comfortable, safe, prosperous, etc.
You seem to be saying that freedom is being the biggest kid on the block. I guess that's true, to a degree. But the implication of your post is that when you roll around the world exploiting people they eventually get pissed about it. So we need this military to fight the people we're pissing off.
I think I just disagree with the premise. I don't think the only path to freedom is being big and tough enough to take other people's stuff (that's what we're really talking about when we say we exploit a people), though it may be the way to fabulous wealth and power over others. The world doesn't have to be that way. Capitalism isn't like thermodynamics. There are no iron laws of society, there are only our choices. We have chosen to conduct ourselves in this way. And we can choose to be different.
Really, the American public only puts up with it because they don't have to see it happening. I read a short story many years ago called The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. It made me think about what kind of person I want to be, and propriety of making others miserable so that I can have a comfortable lifestyle.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Even being born on Western soil does not make you American or British. Assimilating and accepting hundreds of years of our values and history makes you a citizen.
In 1868, three-fourths of the states disagreed with you.
Oh, now I get it. You're trying to pull a "no true citizen" fallacy, to the effect "No true British citizen residing in Scotland puts sugar on his porridge."
That's just silly. I prefer to not make stuff up, when I'm accusing the government of executing Americans without trial. You can put your faith in the Washington post, but in my experience, that is not wise.
Oh yeah? Well then I support putting you in a cage for the rest of your life. Neener neener boo boo.
There is a huge difference between occasionally killing people in secret and declaring that the government has the right to kill citizens without a trial.
The government has always had the right to kill citizens without a trial. Let me refer you to a little thing called the Civil War, where lots of citizens were killed without a trial.
Occasionally killing people in secret is worse, I think, because if the person should legitimately be killed, what's wrong with telling the public about it? If it has to be done secretly, then it's probably not the right thing to do.
Once execution without trials is in the open, what limits the numbers?
Natural selection?
Hard to not think of Bill Clinton's infamous words while you actually read the memo.
A lawyer's opinion is just work for hire. If all you needed to legally kill somebody was a lawyer's opinion letter, we'd all have killed each other long ago for perfectly "justifiable" reasons.
By definition, it's the the job of any lawyer to be able to make a case that black is white, or anything else you like. The next day, they can make the case that black is red. Just depends on who the client is that day.
The reason we have a right to due process IN THE US is that the US is a strong state. There are few places in the country where you can operate criminally with impunity. And I don't mean impunity granted through political corruption, etc, but places where the US government cannot send its forces, even if it really really really wants to. Places that are out of reach of law enforcement.
But when you're outside the country, and especially in an uncivilized place, whether the mountains of Afghanistan or Syria or some jungle in South America, you are outside our reach. It would take a huge effort, putting many lives at risk, to extend due process to the entire world. For what? So some asshat terrorist can get his day in court? No thanks.
There are practical limits to everything in the constitution. It is not a suicide pact.
I'll note that in the past, within the US, we have also ignored due process because it wasn't practical. I'm thinking of the wild west for instance. There wasn't a strong state there, so the local marshal would be judge, jury, and executioner. Or the townsfolk would just lynch somebody for breaking the law. Today that would be a crime in and of itself, back then it was the way it was.
Irrelevant. They knew he was there, and they killed him.
In fact it is relevant. Collateral damage is okay and expected in actions like this.
That's just authoritarian naivete, as the U.S. has indisputably been in the business of murdering American citizens as of the al-Awlaki family.
Your experience, if it was honest, is of WaPo bending over backwards to accommodate the "needs" and wants of the American military-industrial-imperialism complex. Not of them making shit up about when the CIA decides to murder people.
Imperialist hypocrisy and American Exceptionalism are never "okay". You know who else was "collateral damage" - just about everyone who died on 911. The other problem with your defense of the indefensible: most of the people murdered by drones are not on any "battlefield". They're minding their own business in their own homes, walking around town, or attending a wedding....until a robot plane fires a missile at them and anyone around them. The USG is the largest and deadliest terrorist organization on the planet.
You know who else was "collateral damage" - just about everyone who died on 911.
No, because civilians were the target in the 9/11 attack. That's the opposite of collateral damage.
most of the people murdered by drones are not on any "battlefield"
Well yeah, so? I never said they were literally on a battlefield, and that's okay. They don't have to be.
They're minding their own business in their own homes, walking around town, or attending a wedding
Yes, terrorists are not in full-on terrorism mode 100% of the time. They also have weddings and go on walks after dinner. Point being?
The USG is the largest and deadliest terrorist organization on the planet.
That just tells me you're using "terrorist" differently from the commonly accepted definition.
I happen to agree with you on the declaration of war. I think that Congress should actually have the balls to declare war if they're going to get the US Military involved into shooting operations. However I think you have a simplistic view of conventional war, much less asynchronous warfare. It's not even the first time we've 'declared' war against non-state actors, the Barbary wars soon after we became an independent state from Britain being examples there.
Second, just being a citizen of a country, or within the country, is NOT sufficient evidence for them to be a target under LOAC(Law of Armed Conflict). They have to be supporting the war effort in some material way, and generally not just by paying taxes.
By this logic could China use a drone to kill an Chinese citizen in the US if they believe he holds a high position in Falun Gong?
You've missed much of the context of my original post on this topic if you believe this to be valid. Though I'll admit that in reality the politics behind these sorts of operations becomes very complex, and there's still a huge amount of 'might makes right'. Like it or not, being an 800 pound gorilla means that you can push the 200 pound ones around, at least until you piss off enough of them that 5-10 of them are willing to make a coordinated effort. It becomes even more complicated when the 800# gorilla has friends between 500-700# who agree(at least behind closed doors) with their actions.
Getting back on point, your logic generally fails in that said member is unlikely to be an imminent threat while in the USA, capture IS feasible - if they can collect enough evidence the USA will hand him back. Anwar al-Awlaki had essentially a private military force on par with the state's military, so that wasn't an option there. Adherence to applicable war principles - we have an authorization for military action, we're not targeting random civilians, there's a military justification for targeting him, etc...
In addition you have politics. In general we try to have permission from whatever country we're bombing(but not at war with) to bomb the specific targets that we attack. However, the USA doesn't have militias and independent forces that are competitive with the US military running around and is unlikely(in the extreme) to grant any such permission. The alternative is to do without it, which risks the full range of state responses, from strongly worded letters to sanctions to outright declarations of war. Yes, if we bomb Country X in pursuit of killing/destroying Al Qaeda we have to worry about them declaring war on us if we don't have permission. Country X also has to weigh the consequences of declaring war on us in response to our violation of their sovereign territory. Other than that, UN Sanctions are also possible, but if a country is willing to keep going in the face of it(and ask North Korea, Cuba, and numerous other states how much they care about UN Sanctions...), it's still an option. Really, country-level politics is a lot more like primitive tribal law than modern law. Might makes right in way too many cases.
It seems to be a dangerous blurring of the line between law enforcement and war.
The terrorists did much of the blurring when they turned into instruments of war themselves by forming what amounts to irregular forces and taking over measurable amounts of territory. They might not be the formally recognized government in those regions, but they are effectively the local government there. We're talking about zones where if the state military tried to go in there there would be real battles with hundreds/thousands killed.
I don't read AC A human right
No, because America has long held it acceptable to bomb "military and economic" targets. Guess what the Pentagon and the WTC are? Guess what makes makes those who died on that day?
So you're okay with all those that died in the planes and on the towers, since they weren't on any battlefield either. Bloodthirsty sociopaths of a feather....
How sorry were you that the notorious terrorist Richard Jewell wasn't shot on sight after the 1996 Atlanta Games bombing? Are you itching to see the force feedings of Gitmo prisoners on pay per view - you know, the ones that were found innocent of any crime five years ago?
You're telling me the shit coming out of your own murdering ass doesn't stink. That's okay, you're far from the only massive hypocrite on this issue.
Go back to Berkeley. I will agree with you that the US is far more authoritarian than it was just 6 years ago. I'm sure you helped make it that way.
He was reelected, you idiot. The people who were marching in the streets against Bush, are completely silent. They have been exposed as partisans rather than protectors of civil rights.
It should tell you he's an idiot. When in light of the current situation he just falls back into Bush Derangement mode.
No, because America has long held it acceptable to bomb "military and economic" targets. Guess what the Pentagon and the WTC are? Guess what makes makes those who died on that day?
Sorry, but that's bullshit. When was the last time the US targeted an economic target with bombing and timing to maximize human casualties?
No, because America has long held it acceptable to bomb "military and economic" targets. Guess what the Pentagon and the WTC are? Guess what makes makes those who died on that day?
Umm, well, again, if they are AIMING for an economic target, then it's not collateral damage. What are you not understanding here? I think you need a dictionary.
So you're okay with all those that died in the planes and on the towers, since they weren't on any battlefield either. Bloodthirsty sociopaths of a feather....
Not only were they not on a battlefield, they were not terrorists. So why do you think I'm okay with them dying?
Oh yeah you're a little crazy. Right.
How sorry were you that the notorious terrorist Richard Jewell wasn't shot on sight after the 1996 Atlanta Games bombing?
Huh? Not sorry? Or is this a trick question?
Are you itching to see the force feedings of Gitmo prisoners on pay per view - you know, the ones that were found innocent of any crime five years ago?
Force feedings are stupid. Let them not eat cake. I couldn't care less.
You're telling me the shit coming out of your own murdering ass doesn't stink.
What are you talking about? I think you've lost it.
Let me bottomline this for ya since you seem a bit confused:
Killing terrorists is good.
Why, did anyone honestly expect change when democrats and republicans are virtually the same party?
It may be my skewed view from over here from Europe. Maybe with distance things start to blur. But when I watch your pre-election "debates" (I'll use the term loosely here, that ain't debates. In a debate people talk TO each other, something that's even a big nono in these shows), I always wonder what's going on. The questions are without fail about trivial, uninteresting or simply unimportant matters. And for the longest time I wondered why. Until I noticed that the moderator HAS to ask these questions because on all the important issues they would give the SAME answer.
How is that a democracy if the only candidates that have a reasonable chance to win offer essentially the same views? That's like inviting me to dinner and giving me the free choice between McD and BurgerKing. Sure, they may differ in some flavors, sauces and side orders, but essentially it's the same kibble.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Bill Goldberg, "Who's NEXT???"
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
According to the Obama administration, using waterboarding against known foreign terrorists to obtain critical information is wrong, but using a drone to kill Americans without due process is necessary.
I guess we know which side the Obama administration is on.
Really? Didn't Gonzalez write legal opinions in favor of torture?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Unfortunately, that also seems to be true for domestic problems.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Lincoln was indeed handling a rebellion, and therefore had the right to suspend habeas corpus when the public safety required it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Lincoln was indeed handling a rebellion, and therefore had the right to suspend habeas corpus when the public safety required it.
And look where it got us - We still have a fundamental (pun intended) ideological divide between the North and the South, while the industrial revolution had already started and would shortly make the issue of human slavery moot.
A third of the country deciding to take their ball and go home doesn't count as a "rebellion", it counts as time to redraw the maps.
Not quite since day one. Lincoln was the one who first messed with habeas corpus...
I didn't mean to sound as if I bought the idea that a US citizen waging war, aiding and abetting enemies, and getting killed right beside them needed due process before anything was done, I was explaining why a Citizen is more important than a Person to a lot of people when it comes to things like this and the US is involved.
Killing people is usually bad. Sometimes people just need killing. But a citizen, who is subject to US jurisdiction where ever they are, is constitutionally protected where a foreigner not in US jurisdiction is not. Morally, they are equal I guess. But when people get up in arms over the citizen being targeted by a drone strike, it's on a different level than a drone strike itself. That's all I was trying to say.
Do I have to paint you a literal picture in addition to the verbal one? WTC = economic target, Slick.
More handholding? The people attending those weddings weren't terrorists, either. Nor the people minding their own business in cafes, or apartments, or farms.
Dropped on the head as a child? The obvious point here is that just because someone is accused of being a terrorist, doesn't mean they're a terrorist. And maybe you should make sure they're actually guilty before you bomb their ass, otherwise you are the terrorist.
So you ARE disappointed that Richard Jewell wasn't shot on sight. Good to know.
Every time you hear some stooge for the MIC whine about "human shields".
Your American Exceptionalist bullshit.
I see we reached the part of the conversation where you ran out of junk talking points to defend the indefensible, and started blathering incoherantly.