C&SD Question on lethal force without due process

[RevDisk]

Split from Snowden interview thread:

C&SD asked:

Could you point out the "right to kidnap torture and kill etc? I looked couldn't

Previously and currently, the justification for lethal force against US citizens if they are administratively (ie without due process) determined to be involved in terrorism was classified. The US government refused to explain their right to kill US citizens at their discretion. Folks sued on the matter, and partially won.

2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower courts, and the US government didn't appeal to SCOTUS. However, the memorandum will be partly redacted, so it will not be the full legal justification for lethal force against US citizens without due process. No ETA on its release yet.

FYI, the courts have ruled that you can't sue the US government for damages if you're killed by a drone strike without due process or whatnot. So, the government is still allowed to administratively kill US citizens without due process and they're immune from redress when they do so. But they have to (partly) explain why they think so.


-

[cosine]

That above is what I expect to see in this thread... Quality content, quality discussion.

[Balog]

Have they ever retracted the legal justification for the torture of detainees that went on? Have they clarified that sending someone to your allies so they can torture them for you is no different than doing it yourself?

Have they released the rationale justifying the legality of the American citizens they have killed via drone strike?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

And is there a memo allowing us citizens to be tortured kidnapped killed on us soil? Or are we awaiting something to be unsealed? The closet I found was this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-to-reveal-justification-for-drone-strikes-against-american-citizens/2014/05/20/f607bb60-e066-11e3-8dcc-d6b7fede081a_story.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dogmush]

Have they ever retracted the legal justification for the torture of detainees that went on? Have they clarified that sending someone to your allies so they can torture them for you is no different than doing it yourself?

Have they released the rationale justifying the legality of the American citizens they have killed via drone strike?

My understanding (and I don't have the docs on hand) is that the drone strikes on citizens fall under the "Enemy Combatants" umbrella. Since the citizens in question were overseas, and in an area designated as part of the WOT, they opened themselves to the same treatment non US citizens engaging in "Terror". So some intel, and boom.  The fed.gov considers them to have been on a battlefield, during war, not uniformed as either a combatant or a friendly.

You have to squint just right for the justification to work.

[Balog]

There is nothing in the administrations stated rationale for killing American citizens without due process that specifies location, only that they are an "enemy combatant". And that term has been stretched and abused more than the Commerce Clause.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Don't we need to see the paperwork to know that?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dogmush]

And is there a memo allowing us citizens to be tortured kidnapped killed on us soil?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)

There's it having been done.  Well, I guess we didn't kill him. and I know you're about to say that that's not real torture.

And some docs have been released, and they are not location specific.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Is this the event that spawned the zomg? http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/05/holder-drone-strike-against-americans-in-the-u-s-possible/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RevDisk]

Have they ever retracted the legal justification for the torture of detainees that went on? Have they clarified that sending someone to your allies so they can torture them for you is no different than doing it yourself?

Have they released the rationale justifying the legality of the American citizens they have killed via drone strike?

Bybee Memo or 8/1/02 Interrogation Opinion, by John Yoo of the Office of Legal Counsel ?  That torture wasn't torture unless it caused permanent organ damage/failure? Yes, it was retracted President Barack Obama by EO two days after he started his term, which I wholeheartedly endorse. OPR recommended Yoo's disbarment, but Holder squashed that.

Yes, they clarify renditions. Executive Order 13491 squashed Executive Order 13440. It essentially curbs the torture but still allows the practice. AFAIK, US military has switched to maritime detention for their unofficial detainees. So-called "ghost ships". Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame is the only terrorist the US government has publicly acknowledged as having spent time on a ghost ship.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Padilla? He was arrested convicted and sentenced. Not sure if I buy his torture claim. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=703



Is there any better evidence of torture than this?
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1565798,00.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dogmush]

Is this the event that spawned the zomg? http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/05/holder-drone-strike-against-americans-in-the-u-s-possible/

Nope. Well not entirely.

Added to this: Anwar al-Awlaki

1. The US government HAS killed US citizens that were not on an active battlefield without due process.  Both on purpose and by accident.
2. The US government HAS arrested US citizens on US soil and held them for multiple years without bringing charges.  During that time the government DID torture them.
3. The US Government HAS released memo's holding that it had the right to torture anyone it thought was helping AQ (since rescinded, but still)
4. The US government has stated that it reserves the right to kill anyone anywhere without due process.  <-That's the memo of justification we're waiting on.

So given 1-3, I see no reason not to take them at their word that they think they can do 4.

[RevDisk]

And is there a memo allowing us citizens to be tortured kidnapped killed on us soil? Or are we awaiting something to be unsealed? The closet I found was this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-to-reveal-justification-for-drone-strikes-against-american-citizens/2014/05/20/f607bb60-e066-11e3-8dcc-d6b7fede081a_story.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Torture - Executive Order 13491 (Ensuring Lawful Interrogations) does not specifically exempt US citizens from interrogation. Special Interagency Task Force on Interrogation and Transfer Policies oversees interrogation slash torture. AFAIK, they have not specifically exempted US citizens in any of their material.

Kidnapping - Again, allowed but with torture restricted.

Killing - Specifically allowed, with partial memo being released.

"On US soil" is a meaningless qualifier as none of the laws and EOs limit themselves to US territory, and US law applies to American citizens regardless of location.

No one is sure if this applies to ghost detainees (black detainees), as their status is not clarified (or acknowledged) by the US government. There are publicly acknowledged examples of torture, kidnapping and killing of US citizens. Anyone's guess about the unacknowledged folks, as only one ghost detainee has ever been publicly acknowledged and that was after their transfer out of the ghost detainee program.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Nope. Well not entirely.

Added to this: Anwar al-Awlaki

1. The US government HAS killed US citizens that were not on an active battlefield without due process.  Both on purpose and by accident.
2. The US government HAS arrested US citizens on US soil and held them for multiple years without bringing charges.  During that time the government DID torture them.
3. The US Government HAS released memo's holding that it had the right to torture anyone it thought was helping AQ (since rescinded, but still)
4. The US government has stated that it reserves the right to kill anyone anywhere without due process.  <-That's the memo of justification we're waiting on.

So given 1-3, I see no reason not to take them at their word that they think they can do 4.

I had trouble with al-Awaki's kid getting blown up though arguably a 16 year old could be a fighter.

Re 2 who did they arrest and torture on us soil?
 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Balog]

Nope. Well not entirely.

Added to this: Anwar al-Awlaki

1. The US government HAS killed US citizens that were not on an active battlefield without due process.  Both on purpose and by accident.
2. The US government HAS arrested US citizens on US soil and held them for multiple years without bringing charges.  During that time the government DID torture them.
3. The US Government HAS released memo's holding that it had the right to torture anyone it thought was helping AQ (since rescinded, but still)
4. The US government has stated that it reserves the right to kill anyone anywhere without due process.  <-That's the memo of justification we're waiting on.

So given 1-3, I see no reason not to take them at their word that they think they can do 4.

Regarding #4, there's a bit of a shell game where they redefine "due process" down to the level of a "high level official" deciding that an American needs to be killed without a trial. So they can say "We never kill anyone without due process" because the term due process has in their minds anyway been rendered essentially meaningless. And all of that is thrown out the window in "extraordinary circumstances" which of course is essentially a blank check.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/2013.05.23_fact_sheet_on_ppg.pdf

Other Key Elements
U.S. Persons. If the United States considers an operation against a terrorist identified as
a U.S. person, the Department of Justice will conduct an additional legal analysis to
ensure that such action may be conducted against the individual consistent with the
Constitution and laws of the United States.
 
Reservation of Authority. These new standards and procedures do not limit the
President’s authority to take action in extraordinary circumstances when doing so is
both lawful and necessary to protect the United States or its allies

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/us/lethal-force-memo/

- "Where an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States."

But the document also said the government is not required "to have clear evidence" that an attack against the United States will occur in the immediate future to determine that an imminent threat is posed by a U.S. citizen.

[RevDisk]

I had trouble with al-Awaki's kid getting blown up though arguably a 16 year old could be a fighter.

Re 2 who did they arrest and torture on us soil?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Corruption of blood is specifically a legal no-no under the Constitution. Which was hilarious, because that was the public excuse used by Administration officials.

Article 3, Section 3
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

[brimic]

Now you have to get all constitutiony. Since when does (or did) the constitution matter to those in charge?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Didn't they try to claim it was the cousin they targeted? Kid was collateral ?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[fifth_column]

Don't we need to see the paperwork to know that?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not if the orders are processed through the FISA court.