EPTSeriously, that is some scary shit.
"White Paper" from Ob DOJ justifies assassination - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Seriously, that is some scary shit. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
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. Although these close material proceedings hearings scare me almost as much (and they are being fought against)...at least they are attempting to involve the judiciary. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On February 07 2013 00:49 sc4k wrote: Although these close material proceedings hearings scare me almost as much (and they are being fought against)...at least they are attempting to involve the judiciary. Fun fact about state secrets privilege in the U.S.: the Supreme Court ruling in which the court upheld the government not even letting judges review evidence in camera was for a case in 1953. The evidence that was suppressed has since been declassified, and it turns out the original ruling where the courts held up the government's right to assert the state secrets privilege was one where the government deliberately and maliciously lied about the presence of sensitive information in order to suppress evidence of their wrongdoing. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On February 06 2013 23:36 Doodsmack wrote: What if a system of judicial approval of bombing targets renders impossible the task of effectively fighting terrorism? Are more terrorist attacks an acceptable price to pay for oversight of drone strikes? Mind you that the founding fathers that are held in such a high regard in the US were straight up terrorists as well. There's never any "good guys" and "bad guys" in a war. There's winners and losers. The winner's always the good guys. The thing with terrorism is that they're usually normal people like everyone of us, who simply snap, for instance because their girl friend got innocently killed in a drone strike. Killing civilians is probably the worst way of stopping terrorist attacks. It's the best way to fuel them rather. | ||
|
Steel
Japan2283 Posts
Do I trust that the government will use this power lawfully? No, I wouldn't put my faith in the government ever, yet in principle the idea is sound. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5212 Posts
On February 07 2013 00:42 lichter wrote: This scares the shit out of me. Seriously, that is some scary shit. 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 of what the definition of war is. 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. Waiting until the terrorists come to us, isn't an intelligent option. If the President did not have this power, he would have to wait until armed and treasonous US citizens actually did presented themselves 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. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
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. If the United States really considered it a war, how come we charge enemy combatants with murder for killing soldiers? | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On February 07 2013 00:23 emythrel wrote: You dont think any country has had a large scale assassination campaign before? Read some history. USSR and USA have been assassinating people for most of the last century. Go back before that and the British Empire was assassinating people every damn day, is there a Caliph or Sultan not showing proper respect to the crown? Kill him and replace him. Assassinations on a large scale have been going on for thousands of years, all the way back to the ancient Egyptians. Not to mention Israel who are the most aggressive currently in this regard, they will hunt down people any where in the world, most recently (at least most recently in the news) a hotel in China. The justification for these assassinations is that these people are committing, have committed or are planning to commit acts of war/terror against the USA and thus do not get the protection of the usual legal system. I don't personally have an opinion on this explicitly, if they assassinate without doing collateral damage, I guess I'm fine with it. *Sigh* I am well aware of all that, I read all about that, from Mossad, to Condor, to CIA, but I was talking about the methods used worldwide. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5212 Posts
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? Because the United States likes to have it's cake and eat it too. You're right, it is ridiculous, just like when the US got upset when Iraq aired videos of captured US soldiers citing the Geneva Convention, but then the US paraded around a video of Saddam Hussein when he was captured. Honestly, it is irrelevant to this conversation. I am speaking about whether or not the President should have this right. If the President didn't have the power to stop something dangerous he believes will happen before it happens, then our ability to fight terrorists is greatly diminished. | ||
KwarK
United States41961 Posts
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? And torture prisoners. Torturing prisoners of war is a pretty disgusting. And then we get upset when they don't treat our captured soldiers with respect. It's a pretty remarkable doublethink. I'd be okay with a leader who got on a podium and said "The world is a complicated place, this issue is ridiculously complicated, there are no easy solutions and if my opponent thinks there is a solution and it's to bomb more brown people then he's a moron. Sometimes terrorist attacks will happen. That sucks but there's not much that can be done about it and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying." | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On February 07 2013 01:53 BronzeKnee wrote: Because the United States likes to have it's cake and eat it too. You're right, it is ridiculous, just like when the US got upset when Iraq aired videos of captured US soldiers citing the Geneva Convention, but then the US paraded around a video of Saddam Hussein when he was captured. Honestly, it is irrelevant to this conversation. I am speaking about whether or not the President should have this right. If the President didn't have the power to stop something dangerous he believes will happen before it happens, then our ability to fight terrorists is greatly diminished. Obviously there has to be some tradeoff between effectively fighting terrorists and respecting human rights, and a lot of people would argue that allowing the President to unilaterally (and regularly) authorize assassinations is over the line. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5212 Posts
Understand this, just like a how some builds in SC2 are designed to exploit a loophole or weakness in another build, people have stopped attempting to fight western powers in a conventional means, they have gone unconventional, in an attempt to exploit them. Now the western world is still trying to figure out how to stop this terrorist build without trampling the rights of people, but this power must be had, the same way that Protoss cannot open Nexus first versus someone who 6 pools. There is no other option, unless we want to wait until the enemy strikes us to respond. And the problem there, you're responding when it is too late. The genocidal terrorists were on a suicide mission. Responding after the fact would be like sending up SCVs to repair after the Banelings have killed your Bunkers. And that is the whole issue here, 9-11 wasn't like Pearl Harbor where the Japanese then planned to follow up to defeat the United States conventionally in the end. The strike on 9-11 was the end for the terrorists. Yes, there is potential for abuse here, but there is potential for abuse in everything. The President must have the power to stop the enemy before he strikes, whether or not the enemy be foreign or domestic. The paper "concludes that the president has the authority to assassinate 'a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida' who 'poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US' where capture is 'infeasible.' Again, if the President did not have this power, he would have to wait until armed and treasonous US citizens actually did present themselves aggressively 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 to protect the nation. If the President didn't this power, I'd be a lot more scared. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
The government can already kill citizens legally. Examples often include the police killing suspects who are running away or threaten the life of another. Wars represent legal killing by the government. The central issue is not that the government can kill people but that it can do so on the basis that they present an "imminent threat". The white paper tries to weaken and muddle the definition of imminent and do so on a national security basis. It's a personalized version of the basis for the Iraq War. It does not define the limits to when someone who says they hate America and want to kill Americans transitions from ugly talk to planning an act of terror, when they go from a potential threat to an imminent one. IMO the frightful part is that President Obama gives himself the authority to exercise his own judgment to decide who is an imminent threat. And he doesn't have to justify or explain his logic to the people or to Congress. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5212 Posts
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, but that would happen only when, and I 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. 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." Read it! Does anyone really disagree with that? | ||
|
hinnolinn
212 Posts
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? 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? And I do disagree with it. this paper also sets up the framework for establishing increased executive power that was not allowed it by congress/senate. That means that in the future it's just another step after showing that the president already has the power to kill citizens without due process to another power. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5212 Posts
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? 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." | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
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? The executive will always be more expedient than the judicial, the idea here is preemption. | ||
|
hinnolinn
212 Posts
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." 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. And I disagree that preemption super-cedes the need for due process. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5212 Posts
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. So we have two choices here. Either: (1) We allow the government to kill someone who they cannot capture who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (2) Or we don't, which then allows them to violently attack the United States. There is no other options. | ||
|
hinnolinn
212 Posts
On February 07 2013 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote: So we have two choices here. Either: We allow the government to kill someone who they cannot capture who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. Or we don't, which then allows them to violently attack the United States. That's rather myopic. We could have specific panels set up for quick and appropriate judgements, with lifetime appointed judges and perhaps an observer or two to help keep them accountable to the public if they start just rubber stamping things. We could, I don't know, maybe get congress/senate to grant this power to the president instead of him just taking it for himself. There's plenty of possible solutions. Only allowing yourself to see this as a binary choice is just laziness. | ||
| ||
