Support NeoGAF

[faceless007]

So you're saying that if an American citizen joins the Taliban or is actively supporting the Taliban (or other organization) that we need to bring them into court even though they have taken up arms or support an enemy?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

 

[kingkitty]

Justice Department excels at being used as political cover. It was the same shit with 'enhanced' torture, and it's same old shit here.

 

[The Technomancer]

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

I think the relevent point here might be one of "residence"

 

[empty vessel]

Targeted assassinations--whether of citizens or not--are crimes. The Obama Administration is disgracefully criminal in this regard.

 

[The Technomancer]

Targeted assassinations--whether of citizens or not--are crimes. The Obama Administration is disgracefully criminal in this regard.

I agree to the extent that all war itself is philosophically criminal behavior except in the most clear cut cases of active self defense. (which I'm not in any way saying this is. Its not. Active defense is "the troops are marching over the hills, form a line boys")

 

[LaserBuddha]

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

If they've defected to join a group in violent conflict with the U.S., don't they fail that second qualifier of "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"?

I mean, we DO accept the concept that it is possible to renounce your own citizenship, yes? And that joining Al Qaeda and leaving the U.S. to join serves as an implicit renunciation?

 

[way more]

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

It sounds like taliban fighters would be defectors and no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

Targeted assassinations--whether of citizens or not--are crimes. The Obama Administration is disgracefully criminal in this regard.

nope

 

[Codeblue]

The problem is that all those determinations are entirely arbitrary with virtually no checks... so yeah it's pretty ridiculous. No, they can't just blow up your house, but they wouldn't need a WHOLE lot to justify it. I'm sure you could find some angsty high school kids out there posting on message boards that would meet this standard as reasonable targets.

Agreed.

I don't really trust the people who define suspected terrorists as any military aged male who happens to be killed in a drone strike to follow these guidelines all too strictly or to not shift the goalposts altogether.

 

[empty vessel]

I agree to the extent that all war itself is philosophically criminal behavior except in the most clear cut cases of active self defense.

Yes, but this has nothing to do with war at all as far as I can tell. It's a program to execute individuals suspected of potentially conspiring to commit criminal acts in the future.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yes, but this has nothing to do with war at all as far as I can tell. It's a program to execute individuals suspected of potentially conspiring to commit criminal acts in the future.

I guess to me once we've already crossed the line into "sending force over to try and kill unknown people who represent(?) a threat to the country" then its not crossing a new line to shift that to "sending force over to try and kill known people who represent(?) a threat to the country".

 

[faceless007]

If they've defected to join a group in violent conflict with the U.S., don't they fail that second qualifier of "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"?

Does it? I honestly don't know, but it would seem odd to me to implicitly admit that we don't have jurisdiction over such people because of it. It seems the logic here is that we may not have the jurisdiction to prosecute such people under the law, therefore we have the right to kill them. That's, um, an interesting approach to questions of due process and citizenship.

I mean, we DO accept the concept that it is possible to renounce your own citizenship, yes? And that joining Al Qaeda and leaving the U.S. to join serves as an implicit renunciation?

Yes to the first, but the State Department disagrees with you on the second. Absent a formal declaration of renunciation, "U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship" and the closest potentially expatriating act would be:

entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

Since al Qaeda isn't actually a state, though, that presents a bit of a problem, and it's not even clear that establishes "intent to relinquish citizenship."

 

[empty vessel]

I guess to me once we've already crossed the line into "sending force over to try and kill unknown people who represent(?) a threat to the country" then its not crossing a new line to shift that to "sending force over to try and kill known people who represent(?) a threat to the country".

Yeah, but neither of those scenarios constitute war to me. A war is not occurring every time a country takes action against a perceived threat merely by virtue of that fact. Terrorism is a criminal act. (It's defined that way by our own domestic laws.) If there are people who we believe are orchestrating terrorism against the domestic US public, then they are people we believe are engaged in criminal acts. And the response to that ought not be murder. It should be arrest upon probable cause and trial in accordance with due process (working through international channels as appropriate).

The worst part is that I suspect almost none of the targeted killings are even internally justified on the ground that the victims are actively engaged in plotting terrorist activities against the domestic US public. As far as I can tell, the targeted killing program is just a projection of American imperial power. It seems to me that the targets of our assassination program are merely the political opponents of our foreign policy objectives. Have you ever heard of any targeted killings occurring against somebody who was even alleged to have been actively plotting an act of terrorism against the domestic US public?

 

[el retorno]

Yeah, but neither of those scenarios constitute war to me. A war is not occurring every time a country takes action against a perceived threat merely by virtue of that fact. Terrorism is a criminal act. (It's defined that way by our own domestic laws.) If there are people who we believe are orchestrating terrorism against the domestic US public, then they are people we believe are engaged in criminal acts. And the response to that ought not be murder. It should be arrest upon probable cause and trial in accordance with due process (working through international channels as appropriate).

The worst part is that I suspect almost none of the targeted killings are even internally justified on the ground that the victims are actively engaged in plotting terrorist activities against the domestic US public. As far as I can tell, the targeted killing program is just a projection of American imperial power. It seems to me that the targets of our assassination program are merely the political opponents of our foreign policy objectives. Have you ever heard of any targeted killings occurring against somebody who was even alleged to have been actively plotting an act of terrorism against the domestic US public?

Al alwaki

 

[Deified Data]

Don't worry guys, I'm sure Obama totally has reservations about this on some level.

 

[daycru]

Don't worry guys, I'm sure Obama totally has reservations about this on some level.

His hands are tied, I have full confidence this will be taken care of during his third term.

 

[Deified Data]

His hands are tied, I have full confidence this will be taken care of during his third term.

 

[Kad5]

Nobel Peace Prize winner guys

All hail Obama. Never makes bad decisions. Never makes mistakes. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.

 

[Madness]

It's a dangerous precedent but it's the way the modern United States works now.

What does it really mean to be American these days? Or be 'born' there? I've known immigrants who were better Americans than American citizens were.

I think the reason a lot of people are okay with this new interpretation of the law is because it is a Muslim us citizen getting drone striked in Yemen and not a white American getting sniped in London etc. What if the government has reason to believe some southie Boston, white American hacked an nsa database on the deployment of secret agents around the globe and flees abroad. Would you then also be okay with the government taking him out without ever proving he did anything?

I know it's a dumb analogy. But the fact is, the government ordered the killing of a US citizen without ever providing due process guaranteed by the constitution, the ultimate law of the land. That's about as clear as it gets.

 

[el retorno]

It's a dangerous precedent but it's the way the modern United States works now.

What does it really mean to be American these days? Or be 'born' there? I've known immigrants who were better Americans than American citizens were.

I think the reason a lot of people are okay with this new interpretation of the law is because it is a Muslim us citizen getting drone striked in Yemen and not a white American getting sniped in London etc. What if the government has reason to believe some southie Boston, white American hacked an nsa database on the deployment of secret agents around the globe and flees abroad. Would you then also be okay with the government taking him out without ever proving he did anything?

I know it's a dumb analogy. But the fact is, the government ordered the killing of a US citizen without ever providing due process guaranteed by the constitution, the ultimate law of the land. That's about as clear as it gets.

That's not what this says. And this doesn't have anything to do with race. If a white guy was doing the same thing as al alwaki he deserves the same treatment

 

[Lambtron]

That's not what this says.

Sure this doesn't say that, but all of the other information we have received about who they view as a "credible threat" doesn't really uh, inspire a lot of confidence that we're crossing a really tough threshold before we start firing Predator missiles at people.

 

[empty vessel]

That's not what this says. And this doesn't have anything to do with race. If a white guy was doing the same thing as al alwaki [was alleged to have been doing] he deserves the same treatment

I fixed that for you. And I agree. He would deserve due process before being deprived of life or liberty as the US Constitution explicitly requires.

Also, what exactly is the terrorist plot against the domestic US public that Al Alwaki was allegedly preparing?

 

[Mononoke]

Would you guys be okay with this, if Bush admin had announced this? Or would there be more moral outrage...

 

[Clipjoint]

I fixed that for you. And I agree. He would deserve due process before being deprived of life or liberty as the US Constitution explicitly requires.

Also, what exactly is the terrorist plot against the domestic US public that Al Alwaki was allegedly preparing?

None. AQ never trusted him, he was just a propagandist for them. That's why he was never charged with a crime - there was no evidence he was actively plotting against the US, besides the (questionable) testimony of the underwear bomber.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

The constitution provides every American citizen with due process.

Does it?

People get shot and killed by police all the time, often because they were in the process of committing a criminal act that put others in harm's way.

 

[Mariolee]

What's from stopping someone from abusing this power and having political opponents, or civilians knocked off and claiming they were terrorists.

People with half a noggin being able to deduce they're full of shit.

 

[Mononoke]

People with half a noggin being able to deduce they're full of shit.

You are giving congress too much credit.

 

[Terra Firma]

That's not what this says. And this doesn't have anything to do with race. If a white guy was doing the same thing as al alwaki he deserves the same treatment

If people use the 2nd amendment to form a militia to take down the government, these people would also be deemed as terrorists. Should targeted killings be allowed to kill those who want to practice the 2nd amendment in its actual spirit?

And it's "al-Awlaki".

 

[way more]

If people use the 2nd amendment to form a militia to take down the government, these people would also be deemed as terrorists. Should targeted killings be allowed to kill those who want to practice the 2nd amendment in its actual spirit?

And it's "al-Awlaki".

lol, he spelled it wrong, all his opinions are invalid. Now his only hope is to find a grammatical mistake in your text.

 

[titiklabingapat]

I'm fine with this. The only people who seem to have a problem with this are the usual conspiracy nutters(both from the Right and Left) who thinks that government is out to get them anyway.

Im okay with the drone strikes in general as well. They are still better than carpet bombing an area and killing way more civilians, using human pilots who might crash and be used as a bargaining chip in the political fallout. The way I look at it, we are not gonna stop bombing in rogue areas/belligerent governments/corrupt states, we never have. Might as well make them more efficient and use smart targeting to reduce civilian casualties.

 

[Dead Man]

Nope. Not cool. This shit is going to be the cause of a lot of blowback in 10 years.

I'm fine with this. The only people who seem to have a problem with this are the usual conspiracy nutters(both from the Right and Left) who thinks that government is out to get them anyway.

Im okay with the drone strikes in general as well. They are still better than carpet bombing an area and killing way more civilians, using human pilots who might crash and be used as a bargaining chip in the political fallout. The way I look at it, we are not gonna stop bombing in rogue areas/belligerent governments/corrupt states, we never have. Might as well make them more efficient and use smart targeting to reduce civilian casualties.

This sort of shit makes me sad as hell. 'We have to kill people, so we may as well do it as efficiently as possible'.

 

[el retorno]

I fixed that for you. And I agree. He would deserve due process before being deprived of life or liberty as the US Constitution explicitly requires.

Also, what exactly is the terrorist plot against the domestic US public that Al Alwaki was allegedly preparing?

He was working with Al qaeda in the AP.

And the supreme courts interpretation has never seen due process clause as unlimited. Can cops shoot a suspect that is a threat to other people? The supreme court explicitly said in the detainee case that the due process didn't apply to people in war zones. The only stretch they're making here is targeting them and he's not in a war zone per se.

This isn't some giant stretch. I don't get the lefts outrage at this. This isn't saying they're needs be no proof. This says that they're doesn't need to be a specific active plot. But it still requires that they be actively engaged in working with terrorists.

If people use the 2nd amendment to form a militia to take down the government, these people would also be deemed as terrorists. Should targeted killings be allowed to kill those who want to practice the 2nd amendment in its actual spirit?

And it's "al-Awlaki".

Do they have a reasonable chance of being captured? If so then capture them if not. Then yes they can be killed if they are a threat to public safety. This is seen every day by police officers

Btw I'm not in agreement with that interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I don't know why that was brought up. I'm not some right wing guy.

 

[Terra Firma]

lol, he spelled it wrong, all his opinions are invalid. Now his only hope is to find a grammatical mistake in your text.

Are you dense? You focused on one part of my post and he had been making the same mistake ever since he mentioned al-Awlaki. Imagine someone calling Obama "Obamba" throughout a thread, not knowing any better.

 

[Terra Firma]

Do they have a reasonable chance of being captured? If so then capture them if not. Then yes they can be killed if they are a threat to public safety. This is seen every day by police officers

The police are not the military. The police enforce civil law, the military does not. Forming a militia is not against the law but what if this militia takes over a city and then spreads?

Think of the civil war. Would Abe Lincoln be justified in using targeted assassinations? Was his assassination justified since many elements in the South did not recognize his rule?

Btw I'm not in agreement with that interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I don't know why that was brought up. I'm not some right wing guy.

I thought the entire reason for an armed militia (and thus the 2nd amendment) was to keep the government in check?

 

[el retorno]

The police are not the military. The police enforce civil law, the military does not. Forming a militia is not against the law but what if this militia takes over a city and then spreads?

Think of the civil war. Would Abe Lincoln be justified in using targeted assassinations? Was his assassination justified since many elements in the South did not recognize his rule?

I dont even know what your point is now.

I thought the entire reason for an armed militia (and thus the 2nd amendment) was to keep the government in check?

Not in my world

 

[way more]

Think of the civil war. Would Abe Lincoln be justified in using targeted assassinations? Was his assassination justified since many elements in the South did not recognize his rule?

He justified the execution of enemy combatants in war if at least two officers agreed.

 

[remnant]

I have a feeling if Romney was president this thread would be drastically different in tone, and larger.

That's not what this says. And this doesn't have anything to do with race. If a white guy was doing the same thing as al alwaki he deserves the same treatment

technically couldn't the U.S. just drone strike anyone they feel could commit a criminal act in the future. The federal government already acts as if certain right wing groups are threats.

What if you are a minutemen or a member of the tea party. Groups that some people do see as unamerican at best and criminal at worst.

 

[speculawyer]

I laughed too hard at this.

 

[way more]

I have a feeling if Romney was president this thread would be drastically different in tone, and larger.



technically couldn't the U.S. just drone strike anyone they feel could commit a criminal act in the future. The federal government already acts as if certain right wing groups are threats.

What if you are a minutemen or a member of the tea party. Groups that some people do see as unamerican at best and criminal at worst.

Yep, buy all the guns you can, drone strikes against the Tea Party start soon. After that anyone who agrees with the 2cd amendment.

 

[remnant]

I'm fine with this. The only people who seem to have a problem with this are the usual conspiracy nutters(both from the Right and Left) who thinks that government is out to get them anyway.

Im okay with the drone strikes in general as well. They are still better than carpet bombing an area and killing way more civilians, using human pilots who might crash and be used as a bargaining chip in the political fallout. The way I look at it, we are not gonna stop bombing in rogue areas/belligerent governments/corrupt states, we never have. Might as well make them more efficient and use smart targeting to reduce civilian casualties.

And when someone flies planes into your building or leaks gas on your public transit system, are you going to ask the nutters why then, or walk around in a daze saying "why do they hate us?"

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Nope. Not cool. This shit is going to be the cause of a lot of blowback in 10 years.



This sort of shit makes me sad as hell. 'We have to kill people, so we may as well do it as efficiently as possible'.

his is the generic chicken hawk bullshit. a coward of the utmost pedigree. it's expected from today's apathetic and out of touch youth.

 

[ShdwDrake]

I dunno why your bringing the constitution into this. Obama doesn't care about the constitution.

 

[The Faceless Master]

What's from stopping someone from abusing this power and having political opponents, or civilians knocked off and claiming they were terrorists.

guns!

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

I'm completely fine with killing a terrorist, American or not.
I'm not liking how this is being handled though at all.

 

[The Adder]

What's from stopping someone from abusing this power and having political opponents, or civilians knocked off and claiming they were terrorists.

"Informed high-level official"

"Imminent threat of violent attack"

"Capture is infeasible"

Basically you have to be a high-ranking individual in a non-compliant, non-allied country protected by someone/thing planning to do something violent to American citizens and someone high-ranking in the intelligence community has to say so.

Granted, it's possible that someone could pay to get all of these things taken care of, but it'd be cheaper and easier just to hire a hitman.

 

[Dead Man]

"Informed high-level official"

"Imminent threat of violent attack"

"Capture is infeasible"

Basically you have to be a high-ranking individual in a non-compliant, non-allied country protected by someone/thing planning to do something violent to American citizens and someone high-ranking in the intelligence community has to say so.

Granted, it's possible that someone could pay to get all of these things taken care of, but it'd be cheaper and easier just to hire a hitman.

The trouble is you make it sound like that is a lot of hurdles, but really it amounts to finding a compliant senior official to write the memo that the individual is all those things and you are done.

 

[way more]

The trouble is you make it sound like that is a lot of hurdles, but really it amounts to finding a compliant senior official to write the memo that the individual is all those things and you are done.

Caleb, Ali residing in Ashland, WI isn't going to get put on the kill list either way. If he flies to Iran, crosses the border to Afghanistan, joins a para-military group, becomes a leader, then he possibly will.

 

[empty vessel]

He was working with Al qaeda in the AP.

That isn't even a crime, much less a threat. In fact, the way you've phrased it it's protected First Amendment activity. I'll assume by your vagueness that you have no idea what he was doing.

And the supreme courts interpretation has never seen due process clause as unlimited. Can cops shoot a suspect that is a threat to other people?

The very same due process principles apply. And it would be plainly unconstitutional for a cop to have shot somebody under these circumstances.

The supreme court explicitly said in the detainee case that the due process didn't apply to people in war zones.

Yemen is not a war zone. Nor is Pakistan. Nor even Afghanistan. In fact, the US is not at war right now at all, and hasn't been for a decade.

The only stretch they're making here is targeting them and he's not in a war zone per se.

It's a deprivation of life without due process. You couldn't find a more pristine example of an activity diametrically opposed to the plain text of the Fifth Amendment:

(1) "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..." Al-Awlaki was never charged with a crime by a grand jury.

(2) "Nor shall any person ... be deprived of life ... without due process of law..." Al-Awlaki was deprived of life without due process of law.

This isn't some giant stretch. I don't get the lefts outrage at this.

I presume it's because you don't care if the government acts lawlessly. I think that makes you a terrible citizen. The rule of law is fundamental to civilized society.

This isn't saying they're needs be no proof.

It is saying that. You're saying exactly that. Al-Awlaki was assassinated without any evidence of wrong doing and no adjudication of whether any evidence reflected his life could be forfeited in accordance with US law. Trials are the venues in which evidence of criminal wrongdoing is presented and independently tested. There was no trial; ergo, there is no evidence.

This says that they're doesn't need to be a specific active plot. But it still requires that they be actively engaged in working with terrorists.

I'm assuming you also believe that the government is permitted to kill suspected KKK members on sight? Suspected right-wing militia members (like Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph)? Suspected gang members, too? Suspected anti-abortion activists? Suspected mob players? People who are suspected of "working with" any of these folks?

I genuinely think you should feel embarrassed for having typed all of this out.

 

[Dead Man]

Caleb, Ali residing in Ashland, WI isn't going to get put on the kill list either way. If he flies to Iran, crosses the border to Afghanistan, joins a para-military group, becomes a leader, then he possibly will.

Never said anything different, and I still don't like it. Unless a citizen of a country is actively killing or has concrete plans to kill members of the country, they should not be able to be killed by their won government.

 

[empty vessel]

Never said anything different, and I still don't like it. Unless a citizen of a country is actively killing or has concrete plans to kill members of the country, they should not be able to be killed by their won government.

The bold would still be plainly unconstitutional. Having concrete plans is totally insufficient under the due process clause to dispense with trial and due process. Due process may be dispensed with only if there is an imminent threat to the public that can be avoided only by the use of force.