|
On February 07 2013 03:14 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:09 unteqair wrote: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.pdfThe 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? Yes, it is extremely reasonable. You can be from the country and still be an enemy of the country. If we cannot capture them, it makes sense to kill those who try to kill us. It's just that people on this website are unusually dramatic, and you can especially see it in the USA big brother thread. Or we are people that believe that checks and balances are an important part of the system and should be maintained.
But there is a check and balance. If the President assassinates US citizens who don't fit following three criteria:
(1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.
He will be held accountable. He can't just assassinate people for no reason.
I think we can all agree the United States is at war with Al-Qaida (as much as we can be at war with that organization), and thus these conditions should apply.
|
On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote: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.pdfThe 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? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of 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, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis:
does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces.
The actual memo justifying the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki is still being withheld by the Obama administration despite repeated attempts by Congress to obtain it.
|
On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote: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.pdfThe 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? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of 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, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
I read both of them. While they are interesting, they are not legally binding interpretations of the law, which is why I was unaware these powers existed, because they are not as clear and dry as an act passed specifically granting this power would be(hopefully).
|
On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote: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.pdfThe 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? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of 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, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
To the contrary, the memo expressly makes clear that presidential assassinations may be permitted even when none of those circumstances prevail: "This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful." Instead, as the last line of the memo states: "it concludes only that the stated conditions would be sufficient to make lawful a lethal operation" - not that such conditions are necessary to find these assassinations legal. The memo explicitly leaves open the possibility that presidential assassinations of US citizens may be permissible even when the target is not a senior al-Qaida leader posing an imminent threat and/or when capture is feasible.
The paper quite clearly does not specify minimum requirements in the way that you are interpreting it overall.
|
On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote: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.pdfThe 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? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of 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, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: Show nested quote +does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces.
It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are:
(1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.
The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met!
You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly.
On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:
The actual memo justifying the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki is still being withheld by the Obama administration despite repeated attempts by Congress to obtain it.
That is a whole different story altogether and has nothing to do with what the papers are saying.
|
Uh, no. Re-read the first sentence of the white paper:
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...
|
On February 07 2013 03:26 coverpunch wrote:Uh, no. Re-read the first sentence of the white paper: Show nested 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...
Please, quote the whole sentence...
This is gold right here, wait for it! I'm waiting for the GG...
You guys need to actually read what it says. If you read the whole first paragraph you'll understand it pretty clearly.
For anyone wondering what it says, read it here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
|
United States43758 Posts
On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of 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, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly.
The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society.
|
On February 07 2013 03:27 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:26 coverpunch wrote:Uh, no. Re-read the first sentence of the white paper: 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... Please, quote the whole sentence... This is gold right here, wait for it! I'm waiting for the GG... You guys need to actually read what it says. If you read the whole first paragraph you'll understand it pretty clearly. For anyone wondering what it says, read it here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
What I'm getting at is that this does NOT scrutinize the legality of executive branch actions. It's a starting point for creating a framework to target US citizens for lethal action. I agree with you that this isn't a slippery slope to the president killing anyone he wants. But it is an attempt to loosen the definitions so that US citizenship isn't a shield against actions the president would authorize against non-citizens.
|
I'll fill finish the sentence for you:
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 senior operational leader of al-Qaida or an associated force of al-Qaida... that is a leader actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans.
Pretty convenient you left that out huh? That you stopped at US citizen...
"The conclusion is reached with the recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal operation by the United States against a US citizen, and also of the extraordinary seriousness of the threat posed by senior operational al-Qaida members and the loss of life that would result were their operations successful"
This is not an attempt to "loosen the definitions so that US citizenship isn't a shield against actions the president would authorize against non-citizens."
The papers state that if you happen to be a US citizen who is a senior operational al-Qaida member who is actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, we can kill you if we can't capture you to prevent you from killing other Americans.
I feel safer with this, that without it.
|
On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble.
Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days.
You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of 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, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society.
Obama has never claimed to be a military expert, so to assume that he is making these decisions by himself is to literally assume the worst in him. Granted, sometimes this can be a useful exercise, but in this case, I do not think Obama has given anyone any reason to legitimately think that he is willy-nilly having US citizens killed on some whim or uninformed personal opinion. I am personally not very comfortable with the current set up, and now that drone strikes are commonplace, it would behoove our government to set up a system with a little more rigor. But, taking into account the partisan politics that would be necessarily involved in setting up a drone strike panel or council, I think what we have will have to do for now.
|
But you're stretching it out much farther by saying things like:
Which is basically saying, a US citizen who is a soldier serving in a hostile nations army has no rights to due process.
This is categorically untrue and the white paper doesn't purport to say anything like that.
|
On February 07 2013 03:36 coverpunch wrote:But you're stretching it out much farther by saying things like: Show nested quote +Which is basically saying, a US citizen who is a soldier serving in a hostile nations army has no rights to due process.
That was just an analogy I used to make it more clear to people why due process could be denied, but it is one that would lead people to thinking that this is a slippery slope, my mistake. However, you're taking it out of context too. That was not my intention when I said it. Let's forget it.
Focus instead on what the papers said.
|
OK, well, we do agree on these points that the OP (i.e. the Guardian) is misreading:
-this only applies to lethal action against US citizens, not assassinating "anybody"
-it applies restrictions to killing US citizens only if they are a material part of Al Qaeda, present an imminent threat, and can't be captured
And in fact, if you've been following the Obama administration's position on drone strikes, this isn't particularly surprising or new. There are issues to have with the position (i.e. what is an imminent threat, can anyone sue the administration for being wrong), but a lot of the posts here are claiming implications that simply don't happen.
|
On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble.
Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days.
You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of 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, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society.
Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare.
And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers from a hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.
That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists.
The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole in a very limited manner (ie one must be a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured).
|
United States43758 Posts
On February 07 2013 03:36 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:
[quote]
I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of 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, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Obama has never claimed to be a military expert, so to assume that he is making these decisions by himself is to literally assume the worst in him. Granted, sometimes this can be a useful exercise, but in this case, I do not think Obama has given anyone any reason to legitimately think that he is willy-nilly having US citizens killed on some whim or uninformed personal opinion. I am personally not very comfortable with the current set up, and now that drone strikes are commonplace, it would behoove our government to set up a system with a little more rigor. But, taking into account the partisan politics that would be necessarily involved in setting up a drone strike panel or council, I think what we have will have to do for now.
I didn't mean to imply that Obama was personally staking out the targets and then deciding to kill them himself. Obviously he will be acting upon recommendations from his intelligence agencies but that just makes the safeguard the integrity, competence and ability to present a balanced case for and against by them. Safeguards that consist entirely of the good judgement of an elite were discarded when we left feudalism in favour of the universal rights of man. I doubt feudalism actively strove to be corrupt, unfair and incompetent with its administering of justice but men are not infallible and a system that recognised that and strived to defend the people replaced it.
|
United States43758 Posts
On February 07 2013 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:
[quote]
I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of 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, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Fighting terrorists blurs the lines. Both Allied and Axis powers indiscriminately bombed cities during WWII, yet not all nations were held accountable for it, it is a part of warfare. And that is exactly what the white papers are getting at. Terrorists may not be absolutely guilty of murder, just like a soldier may not actually have killed anyone in war. But terrorists and soldiers from a hostile are willing to harm our people, and if we can prevent this, we should. A US citizen who travels abroad and is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida, who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and can't be captured shouldn't be allowed hide behind due process and use it help carry out his attacks.That is a loophole that doesn't protect our freedoms and ensure a safe and just society, it just helps terrorists. The papers in essence are an attempt to end such a loophole.
You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers. Also saying it's okay for the executive to define anyone they wish as an enemy of the state and summarily execute them (as long as they first define them as meeting the criteria which they also set and then prove it to themselves using evidence only they can see) because of the declaration of a universal warzone and an indefinite state of emergency somewhat misses the point. Shouldn't the onus be on the government to explain why it is that they are seizing emergency powers to suspend the basic rights of citizens rather than saying "it's okay, we have emergency powers so it's fine because we're at war (with everyone)".
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
when you say the 5th amendment is superceded, that's going to make waves regardless of the situation. some of you are acting like just by saying that the 5th amendment is superceded, it is. the aclu has an active case on this before the SCOTUS i think
|
I'm glad the Obama Administration has decided to play the game of charades and act like war is not-war to satisfy all the people who think war is not-war, while still waging war and not not-war.
The other side is waging war, why are we waging not-war again? To satisfy some constitutional law professor at NYU or Berkeley who thinks the constitution should be scrapped, except when it's convenient to act like a defender of the constitution?
You forgot to use the word alleged there. They're alleged terrorists, they've not been found guilty by a jury of their peers.
Not-war must be so difficult. War is a lot easier. See, when you're in the field and fighting a war, you don't get to have a trial to prove that you're in the field fighting a war before the other side can kill you, they can just kill you. That's war.
Not-war, on the other hand, is the clusterfuck we see happening now.
|
On February 07 2013 03:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:36 farvacola wrote:On February 07 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 03:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 07 2013 03:14 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:[quote] http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens. Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you! Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of 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, who cannot be captured. That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf You're starting to give the paper too much credence now. It only proposes a legal framework for this, it isn't a legal analysis: does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces. It is a legal analysis of the section on due process. What it is saying is there is that the paper does not justify assassinating anyone who didn't fit the 3 conditions I've outlined which are: (1) A senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) Poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper isn't trying to "determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..." The papers focus solely cases where those three conditions above are met! You are reading it incorrectly. In fact, the person at the Guardian read it incorrectly. The problem comes when Obama has to convince Obama that the conditions are met before Obama will sign off on the legality of it and the only person with clearance high enough to scrutinise the process is Obama. If used on a terrorist then I'm sure the system works but summary execution without trial would work if it was only used on people who were absolutely guilty of murder. But we put safeguards in to protect the people because it's not just the end result that has value, the process itself is important. With regard to my murder example, you don't simply want a safe society, you also want a just society. Obama has never claimed to be a military expert, so to assume that he is making these decisions by himself is to literally assume the worst in him. Granted, sometimes this can be a useful exercise, but in this case, I do not think Obama has given anyone any reason to legitimately think that he is willy-nilly having US citizens killed on some whim or uninformed personal opinion. I am personally not very comfortable with the current set up, and now that drone strikes are commonplace, it would behoove our government to set up a system with a little more rigor. But, taking into account the partisan politics that would be necessarily involved in setting up a drone strike panel or council, I think what we have will have to do for now. I didn't mean to imply that Obama was personally staking out the targets and then deciding to kill them himself. Obviously he will be acting upon recommendations from his intelligence agencies but that just makes the safeguard the integrity, competence and ability to present a balanced case for and against by them. Safeguards that consist entirely of the good judgement of an elite were discarded when we left feudalism in favour of the universal rights of man. I doubt feudalism actively strove to be corrupt, unfair and incompetent with its administering of justice but men are not infallible and a system that recognised that and strived to defend the people replaced it.
Actually, this is one of the muddled areas where it's not clear what the administration is doing. Initially, President Obama was quite proud of the fact that he personally authorizes every hit and monitors the kill list. Only after accusations that this makes him look like a Roman emperor did he back down and start to insist that there's some process in place.
I think you might stress that Obama sincerely believes every hit improves the security of the United States and that he has good reason to believe he has prevented terrorist attacks. But there is certainly a problem with the process and its transparency. In particular, there doesn't seem to be a case where the CIA says "this is a bad man and we've got a drone on him" and somehow Obama stops himself from authorizing the strike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
