"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly
Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens
31–40 of 166 posts
Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens
#32In the US, laws against assassination and extrajudicial killing make no distinction between American citizens and others: Foreigners have the exact same protections as citizens. This goes for the Bill of Rights as well. (Aside, this explains why the NSA is only "supposed" to spy outside of the US. Wether the target is a citizen or not is technically irrelevant on this particular point) If you accept that the US is in…
True, but who deems and verifies if someone is a member of an enemy force? In traditional war, a soldier would have a uniform, and there are laws against killing non-uniformed peeps. In asymmetrical warfare, it's obviously much harder to ID legitimate targets. The problem isn't whether or not the government should be killing known enemies of the state, it's that the executive branch is unilaterally deciding and confi…
US civilian courts have no jurisdiction outside of US borders, and again, why would such a requirement need to be met for US citizens but not foreigners? Everyone is afforded the same rights (equality under the law).
In a war, there is no legal need to justify killings in front of a judge.
This is all just legally speaking, however. Practically, I think that Obama would be very wise to seek approval from a panel of judges for all authorizations, regardless of whom is targeted. Unlike in traditional wars, the US government is very specifically going after certain individuals. It would seem prudent for the actors involved to seek the legitimacy granted by a panel of judges. But I would still say that the law does not require it.
Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
More relevantly: "When the president does something -- that means it is not illegal." -- Richard M. Nixon
Nixon would be freaking out over what politicians get away with today and never have to resign. In fact their successors simply up-the-ante. Remember how hated Bush's lawyers were? Now we know why Obama didn't prosecute any of them.
The next Nixon will bring a reign of terror down on the US (regardless of which party he comes from), using the laws that Clinton, Bush and Obama and others have passed.
Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens
#34For those who regularly ask why these stories appear on HN: The president's underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president - at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as "Terror Tuesday" - then chooses from "baseball cards" and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man,…
But if it is simply how it does work, maybe that means it should be changed to something where the President doesn't have as much power.
IMO the real problem is America's Electoral system. Because there is no rank voting, the choices are the warmongering party, the slightly-less-warmongering party, or wasting your vote.
Even if the President had more power than it does now, it couldn't get away with these things if citizens had the ability to relevantly vote for another person/party. They would simply vote for whoever else was closest to their beliefs but not e.g. killing Americans without due process.
Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens
#35The other day several american muslims strapped a bomb onto themselves and killed themselves and many innocent people in a suicide attack in Kenya. If there were actual legal mechanisms built into the US constitution or laws created that dealt with fighting an asymmetrical war with people like this then I really doubt the President would go through this process, but that's not the case. I'm not really sure how we sho…
Congrats on being a voice of reason. Like anything, this has upsides & downsides, and it doesn't help anyone to completely ignore one side.
Upsides: At least for the moment, they appear to be targeting people who are genuine threats to many other people.
Downsides: It can be a slippery slope, and how can people be sure such power isn't being abused?
Perhaps one way to mitigate the downsides might be for the agencies involved to be extremely transparent about each case, releasing everything that led them to the decision that they took.
Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens
#36What can a non-US citizen do? What can a US citizen do?
I don't mean this in a sarcastic or confrontational manner at all, but it is a genuine enquiry - other than raising awareness of such issues to the voting public and donating to foundations such as the EFF - what more can an average Joe do to prevent / reel back these reaches and abuses of power?
Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're missing the main point: > the memo isn't justifying the due-process-free execution of senior al-Qaida leaders who pose an imminent threat to the US. It is justifying the due-process-free execution of people secretly accused by the president and his underlings, with no due process, of being that. The distinction between (a) government accusations and (b) proof of guilt is central to every free society,…
No, he is not missing the main point. Rather, he is addressing part of the issue. All his post says is that it does not--and should not--matter whether the person in question is an American citizen. This is a fact which stands regardless of your opinion on the rest of the problem, and so it makes sense not to address that. In more explicit terms: if you believe this sort of extrajudicial killing is illegal (which man…
> Having citizenship does not protect you if you are an enemy combatant.
Actually in that case you loose your citizenship:
Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it [may cause] loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_780.html
Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens
#38The other day several american muslims strapped a bomb onto themselves and killed themselves and many innocent people in a suicide attack in Kenya. If there were actual legal mechanisms built into the US constitution or laws created that dealt with fighting an asymmetrical war with people like this then I really doubt the President would go through this process, but that's not the case. I'm not really sure how we sho…
Congrats on being a voice of reason. Like anything, this has upsides & downsides, and it doesn't help anyone to completely ignore one side. Upsides: At least for the moment, they appear to be targeting people who are genuine threats to many other people. Downsides: It can be a slippery slope, and how can people be sure such power isn't being abused? Perhaps one way to mitigate the downsides might be for the agencies…
"It can be a slippery slope".
(A) Killing your own citizens with (B) secret laws / justifications using (C) zero / secret "evidence" and (D) No oversight by a group outside of those who are ordering the killings can be a slippery slope?
That is not the slippery slope, that is the ditch at the bottom once you have slid all the way down.
Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens
#39How to respond to this kind of argument: We don't need to give "due process" to enemy soldiers before we kill them. How are al-Qaeda members different?
I think the difference is that these targets aren't Al-Qaeda members. They are people accused, with no oversight, of being Al-Qaeda members. So you have to trust the targeting decisions of just the president and his aides, rather than those people plus judges in the judicial branch. Whereas in a normal war, it is easier to justify who the enemy soldiers are, since they are in uniform or shooting at you.
Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congrats on being a voice of reason. Like anything, this has upsides & downsides, and it doesn't help anyone to completely ignore one side. Upsides: At least for the moment, they appear to be targeting people who are genuine threats to many other people. Downsides: It can be a slippery slope, and how can people be sure such power isn't being abused? Perhaps one way to mitigate the downsides might be for the agencies…
"It can be a slippery slope". (A) Killing your own citizens with (B) secret laws / justifications using (C) zero / secret "evidence" and (D) No oversight by a group outside of those who are ordering the killings can be a slippery slope? That is not the slippery slope, that is the ditch at the bottom once you have slid all the way down.
If those people were plotting to kill hundreds/thousands of your more innocent citizens, then you could do a lot worse. The problem is where you draw the line.