Obama Admin: Legal Theory for Whacking US Citizen "classified."

[mtnbkr]

Why didn't anyone have a problem with this when they PUT HIM ON the kill list?

Fine then, right? Carry out what you say you're doing and you're suddenly wrong?

I wasn't aware of it, nor did anyone ask me.  Sorry if I'm a bit late to the game.

Bottom line. He was a prominent Al Qaeda leader who participated in the planning of murder. Congress voted to authorize military force against al qaeda. He was a prominent member in that organization.

This was an act of war. Not execution. He was a combatant.

I will admit that I don't have much love lost for this guy.  That isn't the point.  We now have a legal precedent that permits our govt to declare a person a terrorist and then kill him.  Yes, in this case, they had supporting evidence, but where are the controls?  What prevents the govt from declaring political opponents "terrorists" if the process is classified?  The IRS has already been used punitively against people.  This is the same govt that gave us the ATF, who NEVER abuses their power. 

Imagine if Randy Weaver(1) was declared a terrorist instead?

Chris

(1) No, I don't support him, just using him as an example.  Insert your maligned patriot of choice.

[seeker_two]

This is a war, not a police action.  If it's "supposed" to be "illegal" to go into a foreign country to "kill" AQ thugs, why would it be any more legal to kidnap them? 

Because, by using drones, we're not violating anyone's legal immigration laws....unlike SOME countries....

[TommyGunn]

Because, by using drones, we're not violating anyone's legal immigration laws....unlike SOME countries....

Not...exactly sure  the use of a drone isn't a "technicality."  Though the use of them does increase our ability to whack the bad guys and that's a good thing. 

[De Selby]

Has anyone stopped to consider the governments track record with accusations of terrorism?  How many people sent to Guantanamo were later found to have been either innocent or to have been far less involved in terror plots than was alleged?

The .gov routinely bungles evidence and refuses to consider facts that contradict it's assertions.  Why would we accept its claims about terrorists when wouldnt about much else?

[dogmush]

I wasn't aware of it, nor did anyone ask me.  Sorry if I'm a bit late to the game.

I will admit that I don't have much love lost for this guy.  That isn't the point.  We now have a legal precedent that permits our govt to declare a person a terrorist and then kill him.  Yes, in this case, they had supporting evidence, but where are the controls?  What prevents the govt from declaring political opponents "terrorists" if the process is classified?  The IRS has already been used punitively against people.  This is the same govt that gave us the ATF, who NEVER abuses their power. 

Imagine if Randy Weaver(1) was declared a terrorist instead?

Chris

(1) No, I don't support him, just using him as an example.  Insert your maligned patriot of choice.

Wasn't that what this thread was about before De Selby went off the deep end?  We were all pretty much saying "Yeah, THIS guy probably needed to die, but why is the justification classified?  We'd all like to see the controls and justifications for this decision."

Or did I miss someone saying " Yeah, *expletive deleted*ck it, it's the .gov.  Let them cap whoever."?

Except De Selby, who thinks we should just go kidnap people, subject them arbitrarily to a legal system and THEN execute them. (Wait, isn't that what happens to reporters in Afghanistan?) everyone wants to see the reasoning behind this killing.

[Fitz]

Has anyone stopped to consider the governments track record with accusations of terrorism?  How many people sent to Guantanamo were later found to have been either innocent or to have been far less involved in terror plots than was alleged?

The .gov routinely bungles evidence and refuses to consider facts that contradict it's assertions.  Why would we accept its claims about terrorists when wouldnt about much else?

Your savior, Obama, promised to close Gitmo and come up with a new system to replace the tribunals, etc.

He lied.

Where are your calls for impeachment?

[roo_ster]

Good point - like, why can't we arrest al qaeda suspects and try them for mass murders??? 

Why is roaming the world and snatching them such a terrible idea?  And why shouldn't their crimes be exposed to the public?  Trials are about involving the citizenry in justice as much ad they are about determining the truth

BHO and affiliated enemy sympathizers put the ixnay on that with all their pissing & moaning about gitmo and the other CIA detention & interrogation centers.  They have painted themselves into the position where it is less politically and legally risky to kill hundreds of folks (who deserve it, no doubt) via drone missiles along with collateral folk (who may not).  Amoral dumbasses who can't think one step beyond the immediate into the unintended consequences, the lot of them.  I can not express teh depth of my contempt for them.  They are not fit for polite company.

I just want to know Obama's justification. I want to see if Jimmy Carter would qualify for a drone. 

Jimmy qualifies as a drone.

This is a war, not a police action.  If it's "supposed" to be "illegal" to go into a foreign country to "kill" AQ thugs, why would it be any more legal to kidnap them? 

Yep. 

Killing the the hell outta them (and collateral folk) with a missile: OK and legal

Kidnapping & interrogating in an undisclosed location: War crime.

Why didn't anyone have a problem with this when they PUT HIM ON the kill list?

Fine then, right? Carry out what you say you're doing and you're suddenly wrong?


This Aint Hell sums up my thoughts nicely

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=26777



Bottom line. He was a prominent Al Qaeda leader who participated in the planning of murder. Congress voted to authorize military force against al qaeda. He was a prominent member in that organization.

This was an act of war. Not execution. He was a combatant.

Yep.  And I have no problem with killing the sorry SOB.  There is zero chance he was not making war against America.  His own words condemned him many times over.  It is the closest thing to absolute existential certainty one can find on Earth.

I do have a problem in the reasoning and legal noodling, however, because:
1. It was un-freaking-necessary.  Dude was warring against America and America blew him to Hell.  That's the risk you take in war.
2. The legal wrangling and precedent of POTUS "declaring a citizen a terrorist," putting him on a hit list, and then whacking him on those grounds is most definitely a danger to American citizens.

If I were more cynical, I might think that all the pissing and moaning were done just to enshrine such a precedent.

[Fitz]

agreed, shrouding it in secrecy and being shady about it is precisely what the libs would scream and hollar about if it was bush

[Jamisjockey]

As much as it hurts me to say, I don't see where DS went deep end on this one....

[TommyGunn]

Has anyone stopped to consider the governments track record with accusations of terrorism?  How many people sent to Guantanamo were later found to have been either innocent or to have been far less involved in terror plots than was alleged?

The .gov routinely bungles evidence and refuses to consider facts that contradict it's assertions.  Why would we accept its claims about terrorists when wouldnt about much else?

Actually there's been "terrorists" released from Gitmo that were thought to be innocent who were released -- to be captured back out on the battlefield again because they weren't "innocent."

[roo_ster]

As much as it hurts me to say, I don't see where DS went deep end on this one....

I'd suggest re-reading DS, then.

"Oh, I have no problem going after those who make war against us.  I am just going to make it impossible to accomplish and do my best to destroy you legally when you try.  Have fun!"

[Jamisjockey]

I'd suggest re-reading DS, then.

"Oh, I have no problem going after those who make war against us.  I am just going to make it impossible to accomplish and do my best to destroy you legally when you try.  Have fun!"

What I am saying is that when the government takes action against these people, there needs to be a check on it's power so that it's restrained from terrorizing its own people.  That is why the colonists insisted on juries; they prevented arbitrary and political violence from being used against the citizenry.

As it stands now, we've basically given Obama the power to kill anyone he wants without proving anything, and to do that anywhere in the world. 

You're reading his statements how you want to read them. 

He's pretty plainly stating that there is something fundamentally wrong with the government deciding in secret how it differentiates between US Citizens it just hunts down and kills and those who stand trial for crimes.


The "War on Terror" is about as broad of a brush stroke as you can paint with. 

[Tallpine]

Actually there's been "terrorists" released from Gitmo that were thought to be innocent who were released -- to be captured back out on the battlefield again because they weren't "innocent."

If you stuck me in Gitmo for five years, I'd probably become a terrorist, too 

[mtnbkr]

If you stuck me in Gitmo for five years, I'd probably become a terrorist, too 

You're falling into the fallacy that the WoT generates more terrorists.

Chris

[TommyGunn]

If you stuck me in Gitmo for five years, I'd probably become a terrorist, too 

I don't think so.

[Tallpine]

I don't think so.

Can I use that as a character reference ? 

[De Selby]

Let's see here - most agree there should be some check on the Government's power to kill, and some process that proves people are terrorists before they're up to be killed.

  What do you all think it should be in this scenario, if not the criminal trial?  The government has a proven record of ignoring contrary facts and accusing political opponents of wrongdoing, so obviously an internal process is not a good idea.

   I propose the trial because it's what we have always relied on for this purpose - if anyone has a better idea that would actually work I'd be happy to see it.

Saying "its a war!" doesn't actually change the problem.  We can and have won wars while holding trials for suspected unlawful combatants - that's how it has always worked.  Fight in uniform and attack soldiers - open to be killed without trial but immune from laws against homicide, and you are home free if you survive the war.   Fight out of uniform or attack civilians in secret - you can be convicted of a crime and executed.  That process worked just fine for every war we have ever fought and I see no reason why this war should be an exception.

Fitz, in response to your comment about Obama - please reference a post where I've had anything positive to say about his policies or him.  

[Fitz]

So, we should be capturing and trying every terrorist we encounter?

After all, they are fighting out of uniform and operating in secret

[Jamisjockey]

So, we should be capturing and trying every terrorist we encounter?

After all, they are fighting out of uniform and operating in secret

American Citizens? Damn skippy. 

[seeker_two]

American Citizens? Damn skippy. 

....and when those "American Citizens" are actively trying to kill you and other American Citizens?....

Sorry....when one has sworn allegiance to a cause that is responsible for thousands of deaths, that takes priority over one's birthplace....or, as a great philisopher once said, "If somebody tries to kill you, you kill them right back.".....

[freakazoid]

....and when those "American Citizens" are actively trying to kill you and other American Citizens?....

Sorry....when one has sworn allegiance to a cause that is responsible for thousands of deaths, that takes priority over one's birthplace....or, as a great philisopher once said, "If somebody tries to kill you, you kill them right back.".....

Was he in the process of trying to kill someone at that time? Was he some sort of armed combatant? Was he shooting it out at the time with our soldiers?

[Azrael256]

....and when those "American Citizens" are actively trying to kill you and other American Citizens?....

If it's an imminent threat, he's bought and paid for.  I don't see evidence of that in this case, unless someone has information that I don't.  And don't bother with the "responsible for planning more attacks.." nonsense.  We don't cap serial killers on sight as much as we might want to.

Sorry....when one has sworn allegiance to a cause that is responsible for thousands of deaths, that takes priority over one's birthplace....

No, actually, it doesn't.  Loss of citizenship is a pretty specifically defined process.

It's not about whether or not he had it coming (he certainly did), but about consistently applying the law.  He may have been very guilty of high treason, and he deserved to die for that, but a citizen is entitled to due process regardless of the severity of the offense.  It should be noted that while treason can result in forefeiture of citizenship, treason still requires due process to prove.

Now, what I want to know is whether or not he actually did do something to forefeit his citizenship.  I rather strongly suspect that he did, in which case he's an enemy combatant, and he's fair game.  It seems like a rather easy case to make, and I find it curious that nobody has really tried.  It's like his citizenship was never in question, and that strikes me as very odd.

[De Selby]

Again, fitz- how do you know for certain who is a terrorist until the government's claims are tested and independently verified?

[De Selby]

....and when those "American Citizens" are actively trying to kill you and other American Citizens?....

Sorry....when one has sworn allegiance to a cause that is responsible for thousands of deaths, that takes priority over one's birthplace....or, as a great philisopher once said, "If somebody tries to kill you, you kill them right back.".....

Imagine if the .gov applied this to the survivalist types who claim that the Feds are a front for the un and are arming themselves to fight it....what about the white supremacists who claim Jews are running the US and have declared themselves at war with the government?   

Should the government be able to kill those folks because of their hatred of the US?  And their sworn intentions to resist the government by force? 

[Fitz]

Again, fitz- how do you know for certain who is a terrorist until the government's claims are tested and independently verified?

If you wish to apply that logic, how do we know Al Qaeda attacked the US?

His terrorist activities are well documented.

It's possible my feelings are colored by my close, personal experiences with islamic extremism, so maybe I'm not being rational.

I just find it impossible to call his death the wrong thing. The classification of the legal theory, absolutely wrong... but i am ALL for the decision to shove a hellfire missile up that guy's rectum