"White Paper" from Ob DOJ justifies assassination - Page 4

On February 06 2013 23:55 KwarK wrote:
We have secret hearings in the UK. They get a judge in a room and he is briefed under the assumption that civil rights apply unless there are exceptional circumstances and then he makes a decision. Or at least we assume he does, but hey, at least a judge is involved. It's not that hard to attempt judicial oversight of sensitive security decisions.

On February 06 2013 22:56 vGl-CoW wrote:
This focus on executive branch powers is, to me, certainly the most worrying aspect of the Obama Administration. What's also worrying (though perhaps to be expected) is the relative silence of Democrats on the issue. They made a lot of noise when the Bush Administration basically tried to make torture an acceptable practice, and they're being comparatively quiet now that the Obama Administration is reserving the right to bomb pretty much anyone who they deem to be a threat, pretty much anywhere on Earth.

Here's an interesting opinion piece on the matter (harsh language, but I agree with the message):

We the Targets: Obama's Combat Lawyers and a Fairy Tale of Law

I especially like the author's rewording of the White Paper message from its obfuscated legalese to plain English:



I know that a large part of the public will say "Well, they're terrorists. They have it coming." You can't just say they're terrorists and be done with it, though. Sure, there are deliberations in the White House on who lives and who dies ('Terror Tuesdays', as they are called) and sure, those deliberations are based on appropriate intelligence. It's not like they're throwing darts at a wall full of photographs and going "Okay, that brown guy gets it today." But, there is no oversight.
The concept of three branches of government is both fundamental and essential to American democracy. It was put into place exactly to prevent this type of situation happening. Is it harder and a hell of a lot slower to actually properly collect evidence and testimony and have it pass through a court of law before deciding to rob someone of their life? Of course it is, but it's also the fair thing to do.
As it stands now, you have an executive council with zero oversight or accountability compiling lists of who needs to die. Also, these targets die in explosions which mostly kill innocent bystanders (especially since, much like terrorists, the US has often taken to using a "double tap" strategy with its drones, where you fire one missile and then wait for others to show up to try and rescue their friends from the rubble, at which point you also blow them up). It's hard to notice that drone strikes mostly cause collateral damage, because the Administration manipulates the statistics by considering every male of military age who happens to get caught in the blast an enemy combatant. You're breeding more enemies every day with these practices. Is this really the kind of America you want?

On February 07 2013 00:42 lichter wrote:
This scares the shit out of me.

Seriously, that is some scary shit.

On February 06 2013 08:32 Shiragaku wrote:
Bush would invade the country with boots on the ground and capture the person, then usually end with torture. Obama just kills.

This is in complete violation with our Nuremberg values back in World War II where we put every single despicable Nazi war criminal on trial when the British and Russians just wanted to execute them on the spot. I do not think any nation had just a large scale assassination campaign before.

On February 07 2013 01:43 BronzeKnee wrote:


I don't understand why people are so scared of this.

The President has an obligation to defend the United States from all threats, foreign and domestic. If some US citizen is going abroad and aiding an enemy, that is treasonous.

The real issue here stems from what kind of war we are in. There is no due process in war. There are only dead combatants. This isn't like World War II, where the battle lines were clear, and it was obvious who we were fighting against, and who we were not.

The meta-game of warfare has shifted. Terrorists often times aren't connected with any legitimate government and don't rule over any given group of people. They are relatively small groups of radicals that operate in secrecy in across different nations seeking to use unconventional means to terrorize a nation in order to further their cause. Because they often believe their ideals are more important than their life, they become incredibly dangerous because they believe they are willing to lose everything including their life in order to advance their ideals. Thus we are faced with suicidal people intent on committing genocide. However, the rest of the world has a lot to lose, and life is indeed important. Thus combating terrorism is incredibly difficult.

If the President did not have this power, he would have to wait until armed and treasonous US citizens actually did damage to the United States before responding... ordering an arrest of a dangerous US citizen in a country that won't or can't extradite him is folly and just around waiting for him to commit so terrible act against the United States would mean the President isn't fulfilling his obligations.

On February 07 2013 01:43 BronzeKnee wrote:


I don't understand why people are so scared of this.

The President has an obligation to defend the United States from all threats, foreign and domestic. If some US citizen is going abroad and aiding an enemy, that is treasonous.

The real issue here stems from what kind of war we are in. There is no due process in war. There are only dead combatants. This isn't like World War II, where the battle lines were clear, and it was obvious who we were fighting against, and who we were not.

The meta-game of warfare has shifted. Terrorists often times aren't connected with any legitimate government and don't rule over any given group of people. They are relatively small groups of radicals that operate in secrecy in across different nations seeking to use unconventional means to terrorize a nation in order to further their cause. Because they often believe their ideals are more important than their life, they become incredibly dangerous because they believe they are willing to lose everything including their life in order to advance their ideals. Thus we are faced with suicidal people intent on committing genocide. However, the rest of the world has a lot to lose, and life is indeed important. Thus combating terrorism is incredibly difficult.

If the President did not have this power, he would have to wait until armed and treasonous US citizens actually did damage to the United States before responding... ordering an arrest of a dangerous US citizen in a country that won't or can't extradite him is folly and just around waiting for him to commit so terrible act against the United States would mean the President isn't fulfilling his obligations.

On February 07 2013 01:48 HunterX11 wrote:


If the United States really considered it a war, how come we charge enemy combatants with murder for killing soldiers?

On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
I think you guys should read the memo itself.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

The conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..."

And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force.

I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: "Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."

(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.

(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.

(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.

The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!

Does anyone really disagree with that?

On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:


Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so?

On February 07 2013 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:


It isn't the judicial branches job to defend the United States.

To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans."

On February 07 2013 02:37 hinnolinn wrote:



It isn't the executive branch's job to pass sentence on United States citizens either, but apparently you're willing to cede it to them.