Live data from Hacker News

Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens

theguardian.com

61–70 of 166 posts

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

#61

Let's consider a specific example: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-kil... The missile killed him, his teenage cousin and at least five other civilians on Oct. 14, 2011, while the boys were eating dinner at an open-air restaurant in southern Yemen...The attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., said only that Abdulrahman was not “specifically targeted,” raising more questions than he answered. The…

Good points except for...

> an undefined and secret enemy

Just this month alone...

- Islamic terrorists gun down over 60 people in a shopping mall in Kenya.

- Islamic terrorists blow up over 70 people in a church in Pakistan.

- Islamic terrorists massacre over 160 travelers in Nigeria.

- Islamic terrorists take hundreds hostage in a coastal city in the Philippines.

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

#62
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

a new gang of people who usually went to school together, that we choose (usually... diebold ... die bold ... risk it all take everything) every 4 years. supposedly we do this every 4 years to balance the power they wield from veering too far left or right and sticking to the countries interest.

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

#63
post #61

Let's consider a specific example: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-kil... The missile killed him, his teenage cousin and at least five other civilians on Oct. 14, 2011, while the boys were eating dinner at an open-air restaurant in southern Yemen...The attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., said only that Abdulrahman was not “specifically targeted,” raising more questions than he answered. The…

Good points except for... > an undefined and secret enemy Just this month alone... - Islamic terrorists gun down over 60 people in a shopping mall in Kenya. - Islamic terrorists blow up over 70 people in a church in Pakistan. - Islamic terrorists massacre over 160 travelers in Nigeria. - Islamic terrorists take hundreds hostage in a coastal city in the Philippines.

That still doesn't define who they are. Are you one of these terrorists? Am I?

It maybe helps justify the US' actions, but as far as "undefined and secret enemy" it is only one step further than saying "Who are we targeting? The... bad guys!"

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

#64
post #61

Let's consider a specific example: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-kil... The missile killed him, his teenage cousin and at least five other civilians on Oct. 14, 2011, while the boys were eating dinner at an open-air restaurant in southern Yemen...The attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., said only that Abdulrahman was not “specifically targeted,” raising more questions than he answered. The…

Good points except for... > an undefined and secret enemy Just this month alone... - Islamic terrorists gun down over 60 people in a shopping mall in Kenya. - Islamic terrorists blow up over 70 people in a church in Pakistan. - Islamic terrorists massacre over 160 travelers in Nigeria. - Islamic terrorists take hundreds hostage in a coastal city in the Philippines.

Islamic terrorists is not a defined enemy; many people are Islamic, and any of them could be terrorists. The list of who is considered a terrorist is secret and we are not privy to which people or even organisations are considered enemies in this war on terror. The US is also frequently attacked by Christian terrorists.

Terror aims to scare a population, but more importantly to drive a wedge between a government and its people by pushing the government into ever more repressive measures in an attempt to winnow out the terrorists, who can melt back into the population. The aim is precisely to force the government into ever more draconian measures which alienate the population and build support for the terrorists - to force the government to try to fight a war on the terrorists' terms. A great illustration of this from another era is the film The Battle of Algiers - torture, repression, removal of civil rights, and extra-judicial killing by the government in response are exactly what terrorism aims to achieve. Killing innocents in cafés is not the goal of terrorism, it's a means to an end, and that end is to force the government to adopt terror in response.

The correct response to terror attacks is careful police work to track down the killers and bring them to justice, so that they can't continue to plant bombs. This can be done within our existing legal frameworks.

The wrong response is to declare war on the the terrorists' terms, oppress your citizens, and kill yet more innocents in the cross fire as you target people on suspicion. Extra-judicial killing outside of war is as wrong as terror attacks, and as damaging for the parties involved, and eventually it comes to resemble terror itself.

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

#65
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 nearb…

If the enemy refuses to wear a uniform? Do we just let them go?

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

#66
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the majority of people think it's an acceptable solution for the time being . If they weren't, then there would be a political shitstorm. And there really isn't - because nobody can give a better solution than letting those people just go free and do as they please. From my experience, the majority of people actually terrified of this are people on the internet. A lot of people are uneasy with it, but only on the…

Maybe, maybe not. But murdering people isn't the only awful thing a government can do. If it feels it can get away with this it'll think it can get away with anything.

There's a big difference between killing someone suspected of being a terrorist, and indiscriminately gunning down a bunch of people. The latter is undeniably "murder", but the former, not so much. It's not ideal, but IMO it's not an atrocity.

I guess it all comes down which version of justice you favor: the one prescribed by law or the general consensus for what is acceptable.

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

#67
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nearb…

If the enemy refuses to wear a uniform? Do we just let them go?

If the enemy refuses to wear a uniform, and blends in with the civilian population, are we at war at all?

Terrorism is very difficult to counter, but I'd argue the way to do so is not to accept battle on the terrorists' terms - war amongst the people does not tend to end well for the government responsible.

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

#68
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…

Your description doesn't account for a President who doesn't care about getting re-elected. Imagine how much a unitary executive could get away with if they really wanted to.

Electoral processes are certainly an issue, but it's distinct from the problem of separation of powers that has enabled Presidents to carve out immense impunities for themselves and their favored.

As in nationalized health care, the US should be following those countries with higher standards of living and incorporate a Parliamentary system (or whatever) and eliminate much Presidential power, particularly where the military is concerned.

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

#69
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.

I thought raison d'etat was about a state deciding its dealings with other states solely on the basis of national self interest rather than moral or legal principles. It's that doctrine's failure in Europe and subsequent laws that lead to the idea of 'international law', right?

As far as I know it does not apply to a government violating its own laws.

Edit: subsequent WARS, not laws.

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

#70
post #61

Let's consider a specific example: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-kil... The missile killed him, his teenage cousin and at least five other civilians on Oct. 14, 2011, while the boys were eating dinner at an open-air restaurant in southern Yemen...The attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., said only that Abdulrahman was not “specifically targeted,” raising more questions than he answered. The…

Good points except for... > an undefined and secret enemy Just this month alone... - Islamic terrorists gun down over 60 people in a shopping mall in Kenya. - Islamic terrorists blow up over 70 people in a church in Pakistan. - Islamic terrorists massacre over 160 travelers in Nigeria. - Islamic terrorists take hundreds hostage in a coastal city in the Philippines.

Over it's 200+ year history the US has killed more civilians than that in the average week. Does that make us 4x as bad as Islamic terrorists?
Post reply on HN