please tell me you don't vote.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
US officials struggle with possible drone strike on American citizen
- Thread starter dripdripsplash
- Start date
- Status
Please tell me you don't think my vote actually counts for anything even if I did.
Thank god.
Just curious, how do you think I vote? Because chances are if you care about people in this country at all, I probably support a lot of the same things you do.
Coriolanus
Banned
What a cute way to say FUCK NO, BRO.
So what about your neighbour? Can be Mr. Henderson from a block away, the one with the pedo-looking moustache. It's cool.
Would the opinion of your mother matter?
She could prevent cases like think
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield
Thanks for this.
Imagine if there was a superpower right now that isn't the US and you or your countrymen have been labeled as terrorists and authorized for drone strikes?
That shit is terrifying.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
This is what right wing militia types accuse Pres. Obama of wanting to do while taking everyone's guns. It bears no relation to reality. Read his speech for why he concluded the drone program is the least bad option to deal with Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists in 2014.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
If I ever join an organization that pulls off the equivalent of 9/11 in China and tells millions of people it is their religious duty to kill Chinese civilians, and my group sets up shop in some lawless mountainous region, i will not be particularly shocked if china attempts drone attacks on my group.
The reality is, innocent people are often enough targets. Just because the intelligent services fucked up. Just because the armys way of targeting is nonreliable.
you do get, that your government killed enough innocent people....
by your ideology, the terrorism is OK and justifyed.
seems like you never look at the other side of the coin, ever asked the question why they did something like 9/11? i don't wanna defend anyone, plz don't misunderstand. but they had they'r reasons to believe in. (even if they are cowards)
im starting to get mad now :/ sry if i spelled something wrong.... but this way of thinking sickens me.
if nothing of this makes sense than plz ignore.
empty vessel
Member
I meant to address this earlier. The DOJ White Paper on the assassination of American citizens is the equivalent of the Bush DOJ torture memos. Every lawyer who worked on or endorsed either is unfit to practice law and should be disbarred.
Coriolanus
Banned
I'm sorry, but i'm unable to see this as anything but false equivalency. Could you please elaborate further?
From yesterday, but just wanted to chime in. There were WMD's, just not the kind you're thinking of. WMD don't just mean Nuclear weapons. There were Weapons of Mass Destruction found though.
What are you even trying?
Erm, yeah. News to everybody. Link? Anything?
empty vessel
Member
No there weren't.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Nobody's saying to "leave these people unchecked." Find a single post in this thread where anyone has said, "Not only should we not kill him, we also shouldn't do anything about him," or words to similar effect. You've set up this false dilemma in your mind where the U.S. has only two options: drone strike or nothing. That's not the case.
We arrest and convict in a court of law people who plan crimes. We don't kill them extrajudicially.
WIKI:
"50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles
Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
2 large propellant casting chambers
14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
Some 122 mm chemical warheads
Some chemical equipment
224.6 kg of expired growth media
In an attempt to counter the allegations that some WMD arsenals (or capability) were indeed hidden from inspectors, Scott Ritter would argue later;
There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated ... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat ... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited ... We can't give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can't close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can't reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.[78]
Ritter also argued that the WMDs Saddam had in his possession all those years ago, if retained, would have long since turned to harmless substances. He stated that Iraqi Sarin and tabun have a shelf life of approximately five years, VX lasts a bit longer (but not much longer), and finally he said botulinum toxin and liquid anthrax last about three years.[79][80]"
How many WMD's are still in the USA?
and why can the USA decide who can have them and who not.
(even if its an extremistic state)
btw, iraq joined the chemical weapons convention in 2009, so they had no obligation to destroy there stock and stop producing it before...
btw² just for the lolz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpP7b2lUxVE
That is an utterly ridiculous assertion, the DOJ White Paper on Targeted Killings is based on sound legal reasoning and case law.
What? What does that article have to do with the legal justifications of targeted killings?
Coriolanus
Banned
I'm sorry, i'm still unable to see it. We do have ample, credible evidence that the military unintentionally kills civilians, and we do have ample evidence that they often have faulty data, and both of those allow us to then consider that greater rigor should be expected before mass assassinations are carried out. This is especially true when the military's track record on punishing those that supplied the data is abysmal.
I honestly can't see it. Could you elaborate further, if it is not much of a bother?
dripdripsplash
Member
empty vessel
Member
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
What can you not see? Criticizing the Obama Administration's drone policy because 'what if Barack Hussein Obama drones your mom at her house in Sherman Oaks?' is not a good argument against drone policy. It's an expression of anti-government paranoia favored by Tea Partiers and truthers.
He was making an analogy, using personal attachment, to make clear it is wrong to kill someone without even a trial and only based on
allegations by intelligent services, which have been wrong and wrong again.
Therefore, you read it wrong.
Your reasoning is faulty. I'm tired right now so I'm just gonna type up a quick response. This topic is great considering I'm currently researching and writing a paper on it.
First of all forgetting the President's CiC power to repel sudden invasions or attacks, the AUMF explicitly authorizes the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against "nations, organizations, or persons" associated with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Al-Qaeda is an avowed enemy of the United States and a perpetrator of those attacks and thus would naturally fall under the authority of the AUMF. Consequently, the ability to neutralize or kill individuals associated with the enemy is a natural part of the law of war, or as Hamdan would describe an "important incident
Second, with regards to US citizens and the Fifth Amendment the Constitution calls for "due process" before an individual is deprived of his life or liberty, that does not necessarily mean a trial. A full trial is the easiest means of fulfilling this requirement but it is not the sole or required means, rather the Constitution states that an individual must be given some form of process before they are deprived of their liberty and/or life, as such that it is not an "arbitrary killing."
On top of this, the Court has clearly stated that the right to due process is not absoulte and must be balanced as laid forth in Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1979): "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." With regards to an imminent attack on the United States conducted by a person who has associated himself with a declared enemy of the U.S. the weight of the government's interest is much higher than the private interests of the citizen.
Furthermore, the Courts have noted exceptions to the due process requirement with regards to the safety of others:
Thus, killing a suspect when apprehension is impossible or possible only at risk of serious harm to the arresting officers or others is reasonable as a last resort. Killing when apprehension is possible without risk of serious harm to self or others is not, and violates the Fifth Amendment.
If anyone is interested, this is what it (sometimes) looks like when proper counter-insurgency tools are used to take down a target. Instead of a missile.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...84927a-8f6b-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...84927a-8f6b-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html
empty vessel
Member
We don't need to forget it. The DOJ White Paper authorizes use of force well beyond those bounds by abusing the English language to redefine the meaning of the word "imminent."
The AUMF is a law passed by Congress. It is not the constitution. Moreover, the acts that the administration alleges are being committed by the American in question are criminal in nature. The government cannot bypass the process due individuals it alleges are committing crimes merely by invoking the English word "war," which is what it is in fact doing. If the US Congress passes a law authorizing the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against "murderers" who "kill American citizens," then per this argument the president could simply declare individuals to have committed murder and assassinate them without their ever seeing a court of law. Clearly, the AUMF does not resolve this issue.
The constitution does in fact require trials for anybody that the US accuses of engaging in behavior for which it seeks criminal sanctions (prison confinement, execution). Never before in the history of this country has it been claimed that the government has the power to deprive a citizen of life without a trial. Even treason--the gravest crime--requires a trial per the constitution. Deprivations of liberty that do not rise to penal confinement and deprivations of property may occur with less process than a trial. But that's not what is at issue here.
None of this applies to people whom the government accuses of criminal acts and seeks to punish by deprivation of liberty or life. These are governed explicitly by the Bill of Rights. You are talking about deprivations of liberty or property interests in the non-criminal context.
Note that while you have quoted the law, you subsequently misstate it by adding the gloss "when apprehension is impossible." That is not the law and not even the DOJ White Paper claims it to be the law. It is true that the government may use force when necessary to prevent the threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury, but that circumstance simply is not and cannot be present in the case of an American citizen abroad. A person in Pakistan will never present an immediate threat of death or injury to people in the US in the sense that is meant constitutionally. Conspiracy will never cut the mustard in that regard.
I don't see how you are coming to the conclusions are are drawing and completely throwing out the window the AUMF. Congress has the ability to declare war, the AUMF is an instrument of Congress in which they authorize the use of force. Thus, you comparison of a law allowing the President to kill all murderers in the US is inapt. The United States involved in a war with Al-Qaeda and its direct affiliates, those individuals that associate themselves with the enemy fall under the AUMF and subsequently any killing of such individuals would be lawful under the law of war.
If we were to take your logic to its natural conclusion you would essentially be saying that the US would be unable to kill individuals especially US citizens even when involved in a declared war and the individual is on the battlefield. The law has never held such a proposition, and to do so with fly in the face of the general principles of war.
Your statement here is just plain false, and adheres to such a narrow reading of the word "imminent" that it would prevent the use of force to stop pretty much any attack against the US. Under your restrictive reading "imminent" would only apply essentially when the target's "finger were on the trigger" as one would say. That is an impossible standard and one that simply cannot be applied to terrorists. A senior Al-Qaeda official is going to be involved in planning attacks against the U.S., the fact that we don't know when the "bomb will go off" doesn't undercut the imminence factor.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
You are free to think its wrong, and i understand that view. I would much rather the drone program not be necessary. But its a complex issue, and many people criticizing it have clearly not read Pres. Obama's detailed explanation of the policy and are content to rely on Tea Party absolutism and paranoia. In most threads, that won't get you very far.
All sounds very murky and legally dubious TBH. If it can be proven an American citizen is about to cause the deaths of innocent people then lethal force could rightly be applied in the pursuit of preventing such an incident. The same rationale could be used if police are forced to open fire on a criminal resisting arrest, rather like the Boston bombers. Lethal force CAN be used prior to any trial, under certain circumstances. However, that all being said, it is incumbent on the US authorities to first explore diplomatic and legal routes first, eg. Extradition, before sending in the Predator drones.
empty vessel
Member
The AUMF is an act of Congress. It does not and cannot tell us what process is due an individual under the constitution. To be sure, I don't disagree that the military could kill an American fighting with an enemy on a battlefield. But surely you must recognize that Pakistan is not a battlefield! Ultimately, what we have here is a question about limits on Congress's power to declare war and/or the executive's power to act pursuant to such declarations. If Congress cannot declare war on murderers, then there is a limit to its power to declare war. I do not consider the government's current military operations in Pakistan and Yemen to be war covered by the AUMF or else it seems transparent to me that the AUMF is unconstitutional as applied in these circumstances.
I do believe that states can declare war on non-state entities in some circumstances, but only within reason and usually only for a very limited duration. The "war against al-Qaeda" I think greatly exceeds however far the bounds of waging war against non-state entities can reasonably be stretched. There comes some point at which the "war" must be understood as criminal law enforcement, and we are well beyond that point vis-a-vis al Qaeda.
One way to identify that point is to look at what the government is doing: it is targeting individuals. Wars are not waged against individuals. Criminal law enforcement targets individuals. Another way is to identify what the individuals are doing that is getting them targeted in the "war." In this case, they are alleged to be committing acts that are explicitly defined as criminal infractions by our laws (e.g., conspiracy, terrorism, etc.). Yet another relevant question is where the "battles" in the "war" are being fought. As it turns out, there are no battles at all! Thus, it quickly becomes apparent to any mind subjecting the war narrative to any scrutiny whatsoever that the alleged "war" is just a glorified criminal law enforcement operation. And, as such, Americans targeted in this pretend "war" are indeed entitled to all the rights that any American whom the government alleges has committed a crime is entitled to: counsel, a trial, impartial tribunal, etc.
While my analogy about Congress declaring law on murderers was a little out there, try this one on for size: Could Congress declare war on right-wing militias? For example, could Congress pass a law authorizing the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against "nations, organizations, or persons" associated with the 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist attack? And, if it did so, could the president compile lists of right-wing American militia members it felt presented a threat to the public and set out assassinating them one at a time? I think that under your understanding of the government's powers, it could.
No, my statement is not false. You aren't accurately stating the law. If the FBI had learned that Timothy McVeigh was plotting to blow up the Oklahoma City building in advance of his doing it, it would not be justified in assassinating him to prevent that "imminent" attack against Americans. Your understanding of the law is wildly distorted. To be fair, so is the DOJ's, but they have an obvious motive. I don't understand what yours is.
Lamel
Banned
The Woll Smoth of drones.
There is no need for such a stretch because we have a real historical example, the Civil War. President Lincoln under his powers as CiC was able to use all necessary and appropriate force to bring about an end to the armed insurrection that was the Civil War despite the fact that those individuals still remained protected under the Constitution.
Now, that is not to say that this is all settled concrete law, the fact is we are in uncharted waters right now. Never before has the US been involved in a war with a non-state actors (not counting the early conflicts with the Barbary Pirates) this fact requires a rethinking of the laws of war. Now, you asserted that "surely Pakistan cannot be considered a battlefield!" However, a reading of the AUMF does not support your point, it authorizes the President: "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."
It does not list a place, it is not bound or confined to Afghanistan, indeed Afghanistan is not mentioned anywhere in the AUMF. Rather, the AUMF is targeted towards those groups or individuals responsible for 9/11 mainly Al-Qaeda. Thus, a strike on an Al-Qaeda official in Pakistan would be permissible. However, that does not mean that the AUMF is unlimited. Again, it states those individuals, organizations, etc. responsible for 9/11 while Al-Qaeda may fall into that category other groups, including those that arose after 9/11 would likely not fall under the AUMF such as Al-Shabab or the Pakistani Taliban.
Under these circumstances the administration relies on the inherent authority of the President to repel invasions or imminent attacks. Now, the logic for "imminent attacks" is a bit concerning but at the same time it makes sense. Essentially the administration holds the view that if you are a senior Al-Qaeda official, for example, then you are automatically seen as someone planning an attack against America or its interests, therefore due to the fact that terrorists due not announce when they attack and seldomly appear on our radar that individual is a constant imminent threat. Thus, in situations where capture or arrest is infeasible lethal force is authorized to prevent such an attack.
Again, the logic makes sense even if it presents the opportunity for abuse. If Osama Bin Laden were to appear on our radar in say Yemen, and lets say for these purposes he's a US citizen, then he clearly would present an imminent threat against the US especially after 9/11. And, if capture of him were infeasible in that country then lethal force would accordingly be allowed.
Now, I won't say that there is no argument to had on your side but to essentially claim this is all illegal and against settled law is just plain false. Again, this is new legal ground here and so far Congress has refused to step in and legislate. Hell, one could even make the argument that Congress has acquiesced to the fact that the 2001 AUMF now encompasses all countries/organizations with terrorist ties that seek to attack the US as Congress despite knowing of these strikes has never disapproved of them.
Also, we don't know the facts of this case you are assuming he is in Pakistan or some other country or somehow not a part of Al-Qaeda or its affiliates. What if he is in Afghanistan or is directly a part of Al-Qaeda? Also, the notion that the suspect is being charged with violations of criminal law and thus falls under a law enforcement operation is also false, it is not a law enforcement operation it is a military strike, there have been no criminal charges, as far as we know, levied against the individual.
Targeted killing is not punishment for treason. U.S. citizens who serve as soldiers for the enemy can be shot without trial during military operations but must be afforded a trial as traitors if they can be captured. So too U.S. citizens who are leaders at the strategic level for the enemy can be targeted and killed without trial during military operations but must be afforded a trial as traitors if they can be captured. Targeted killing is not a punishment for a crime but a military operation.
empty vessel
Member
I think you are failing to appreciate the distinction I am making between war and criminal law enforcement. The executive is clearly empowered to use military force to, in the words of the constitution, "suppress insurrections and repel invasions" when authorized by Congress to do so. I do not believe this empowers the Congress to authorize the use of military force against "organizations or persons" associated with the 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist attack. I would like to know if you believe (1) the Congress has the power to so authorize; and (2) if so, the president would then be authorized to identify individuals believed to be associated with such organizations and persons and order them killed without trial.
My point was that conceding that the US government may permissibly kill an American citizen on a battlefield does not require one to concede that killing an American citizen in Pakistan is permissible, because Pakistan is not, as a matter of empirical fact, a battlefield. It doesn't matter what the AUMF says. One of the reasons the US government may kill American citizens on a battlefield is because the government is not making any meaningful decisions about who it is killing. In a battle occurring on a battlefield, one side fights another side. People are killed strictly based upon which side of the battle one is on. Under such circumstances, the government cannot be expected to check the citizenship of each individual on the opposing side before using deadly force. Surely you see the difference between government decisions to shoot made on a (real) battlefield and government actions that with great deliberation identify and single out for execution an individual going about his daily life.
Moreover, that the AUMF has no geographic limitation is simply more evidence of that it is not in fact authorizing military force for a war but rather authorizing it for criminal law enforcement (and hence unconstitutional).
Constant (or sustained) imminence is an oxymoron. This is precisely what I'm talking about in terms of abusing the English language. It's a sure-fire indicator that legal malpractice is occurring, which is what the DOJ has committed.
Again, you are abusing the English language. It is the violence--the attack or assault--that must be imminent in order to kill to prevent it. Deadly force can be used to prevent an imminent attack. Declaring a person an "imminent threat" as a status has no legal basis whatsoever. If the government suspects me of being a serial killer and believes that I kill one person per day, it can't label my very being an "imminent threat" and then kill me without a trial. On the other hand, if it sees me out in a field about to carve into my next victim, well, I'm dead if authorities are left with no other means to prevent the harm. Same goes for citizen bin Laden. Or, frankly, even non-citizen bin Laden. I think his execution was illegal.
The law is well-settled. Once one drops the facade that a war is occurring as a factual matter, the legal questions become exceedingly simple.
A military operation without a war or a battlefield is criminal law enforcement.
foxtrot3d would you be ok with executing gangmembers without a trial? The war on drugs is a war too, if the "war on terrorism" is a war.
I mean if declaring war on one criminal offense is ok, surely there's a precedent there for declaring war on all the other crimes too?
Declare a war on "piracy" and get rid of the pirate bay crew once and for all.
I mean if declaring war on one criminal offense is ok, surely there's a precedent there for declaring war on all the other crimes too?
Declare a war on "piracy" and get rid of the pirate bay crew once and for all.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I'm following these legal arguments with a lot of interest.
But one thing occurs to me that hasn't been mentioned yet. It might be a silly point but may be worth exploring in terms of due process.
Part of the issue here (however it is wrapped up in various legal opinions) is the difference between anonymous killings on the battlefield in a state of war, and targetted killings where you know who the guy is and where he is and can get your hands on him. Very roughly due process won't apply in the first instance but will apply in the second - and we are hovering in the grey area in between.
However, whatever the restrictions are on military action in whatever country it is or in the lack of extradition agreements etc etc, we know not only who the guy is and roughly where he is - we also know his phone number. Because that's how these drones get their targets.
Now there's all manner of due process things that could be done over the phone or by text. So it isn't like it is impossible to apply here. Of course this opens up lots of other difficult avenues in all sorts of ways, but even in law enforcement, and even on the battlefield, warnings are given.
But one thing occurs to me that hasn't been mentioned yet. It might be a silly point but may be worth exploring in terms of due process.
Part of the issue here (however it is wrapped up in various legal opinions) is the difference between anonymous killings on the battlefield in a state of war, and targetted killings where you know who the guy is and where he is and can get your hands on him. Very roughly due process won't apply in the first instance but will apply in the second - and we are hovering in the grey area in between.
However, whatever the restrictions are on military action in whatever country it is or in the lack of extradition agreements etc etc, we know not only who the guy is and roughly where he is - we also know his phone number. Because that's how these drones get their targets.
Now there's all manner of due process things that could be done over the phone or by text. So it isn't like it is impossible to apply here. Of course this opens up lots of other difficult avenues in all sorts of ways, but even in law enforcement, and even on the battlefield, warnings are given.
- Status