Live data from Hacker News

Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens

theguardian.com

51–60 of 166 posts

Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens

#51
post #4

For 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,…

Governments violate the laws when it is in the supreme interest of the country, this is called "Raison d'État".

This doesn't make it any less chilling, but we shouldn't be too naive about it.

Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens

#53
post #4

For 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,…

Governments violate the laws when it is in the supreme interest of the country, this is called "Raison d'État". This doesn't make it any less chilling, but we shouldn't be too naive about it.

Yes, we shouldn't be too naive about it, which is the very reason why we should be outright enraged about it happening.

Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens

#54
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am in full agreement, but I have to ask, why now? This hasn't been news for years.

Here's what's happening: intelligent people are having a desperately needed conversation about the full spectrum of related problems having to do with absolutely terrifying assertions of extra-judicial executive power. This is relevant. That's why it's part of the conversation.

If you're referring to the ongoing NSA scandals, I actually think that the government claiming the power to kill citizens without trial, accusation, or evidence is much worse. It doesn't bother you that the random assassination power is only called into question because of the surveillance power?

Here's loweringthebar.net mocking the story in 2011 (this story would appear to be almost exactly two years old; the commenter saying "we elected Change and we're waiting for it" might reflect that this is the Change we elected): http://www.loweringthebar.net/2011/12/for-christmas-your-gov...

How did "the government will read your email" become a bigger outrage than "the government can kill you at any time without warning and without ever having to justify itself"?

(If you're referring to something else, please enlighten me)

Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens

#55
post #34
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You address an important topic, but I think the problem at hand comes from a more fundamental dysfunction within the system. Once a president is elected into office, he/she is in charge for a minimum of four years, almost guaranteed. We can't simply rely on improving the chances of getting better people into office for at least two reasons: a lot of damage can be done in four years, and even then, most of the electoral branch isn't elected by The People and at least some of it is allowed to carry influence from one president to the next.

I believe the most effective way to solve this problem will be to approach it from many angles with the ultimate purpose of restoring accountability to the executive branch. Improving voting methodology seems to be one of many possibly useful angles. Another might be to put weight on congress to begin scaling back the powers of the executive, such as by repealing the Patriot Act, defunding the NSA, etc. Another still might be to support legislation to protect the voices of other power structures and communication enablers, such as the internet, journalism in general, and organizations like Wikileaks.

Sorry, I suppose this doesn't really bring any new insights to the table. Rather, my point is that there's this really big problem (an overly powerful branch of government) that's been brewing for a while, and it's going to take a lot more than a single fix the repair the whole machine.

Of course, any single effort is better than no effort---I absolutely do not wish to discourage!

Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens

#56
post #4

For 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,…

Governments violate the laws when it is in the supreme interest of the country, this is called "Raison d'État". This doesn't make it any less chilling, but we shouldn't be too naive about it.

> Governments violate the laws when it is in the supreme interest of the country

That's the beginning of a long, steep slippery slope. Who decides what is "the supreme interest of the country"? And who keeps a check on the laws that are violated in the pursuit of that goal?

Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens

#57
post #37
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hosti…

> with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship

Note well this. And it's not just a statute, it's controlling Supreme Court precedent. That's actually why the language that gets used is so consistently weird -- old laws have basically had "with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship" forced into them by case law.

For a citizen to wage war against the United States is treason, but not even treason is punished by loss of citizenship. You could steal Putin's job and launch Russia's nukes at the US, and you'd still have your citizenship so long as you did not intend to relinquish it.

Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens

#58
post #35

The 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…

A huge donwside is that it creates 10 potential terrorists seeking revenge for every suppressed potential threat.

Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens

#59
post #30

How 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?

We don't need to give "due process" to enemy soldiers before we kill them. How are al-Qaeda members different?

If you're at war, you should only target enemy fighters in uniform, not civilians, and try to minimise civilian casualties at all times.

If you're not at war, people should be tried in open court and found guilty of crimes if they have committed them, not assassinated on suspicion, along with civilians nearby.

If you're proclaiming total war against anyone who is on a secret list, and leaving the power to decide in the hands of Obama, you are proclaiming the US a dictatorship where life and death rests in the hands of one man, and there is no recourse to justice before or after the killing. In the wrong hands and combined with total information awareness this would be a terrible power.

Re: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens

#60
post #58
post #35

Earlier 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…

A huge donwside is that it creates 10 potential terrorists seeking revenge for every suppressed potential threat.

That's a good point, it might do that. (haven't seen evidence, but it does sound plausible)
Post reply on HN