Holder: Drone strike against Americans in the U.S. possible

[Simon_Jester]

While drone strikes are simply another weapon in the country's arsenal, and legal to use in that respect, does that mean they should be used domestically? If unmanned drones did not exist, how would people feel about the US using other weapons in that arsenal to attack legitimate domestic threats? Naval artillery? Cruise missiles? Smart missiles? You could argue that these methods all have a higher chance of collateral damage, and you may be right. But even if there weren't any innocents harmed, how would people feel about the Air Force blowing up a building outside Detroit because three terrorists were using it as a safe house?

I would argue that the only time the government would be justified to use drone-launched munitions on US soil are exactly the times it would be justified to use all those other things.

In other words, something along the lines of Civil War Version 2.0, where the 'bad guys' aren't just a gang of criminal types, but have serious military firepower and resources of their own so you can't just arrest them.

But that's actually reasoning from the other direction: drones are a messy explosive weapon, and it is only acceptable for the government to use messy explosive weapons on American soil if conditions XYZ are met.

[Straha]

Let's deal with this back-to-front:

B. Would a marketer for Dell or Apple be a legitimate target for Ugandan or the Congolese military strikes for encouraging people to buy products with minerals (e.g. coltan) inside their borders that directly support and subsidize terrorist and revolutionary groups (e.g. the Lord's Resistance Army, the FNI, etc.)?

Feel free to continue down your slippery slope to crazy town, but I'm not coming along for the ride. If Dell or Apple were in direct contact and encouraging attacks for terrorist or revolutionary groups you'd have a point. They are not, so you do not.

The reason myself and others object to this drone program is because it is the slippery slope. Quite literally the guidelines for the program have been self-described by the administration as uncodified and amorphous, there wasn't even a set procedure for deciding the legitimacy of drone strike targets as of the election. This means that questions of justification really do fucking matter.

You are making the case that someone who helps to create conditions that are vital to an organization's continuing operation are legitimate targets for drone strikes, specifically through recruitment in the case of Anwar Al-Aulaqi. That's really amorphous because beyond and I'm trying to force you to give a specific brightline.

Hence the question of the Congo: There is no doubt that companies like Dell, Apple, Sony, Toshiba, etc. were working with some of the worst groups known to human history. If they were making advance electronics they were using columbite-tantalite, usually called 'coltan', in their products. This was almost exclusively mined in the Congo and Rwanda, usually through slave labor at gunpoint. The mineral companies who sold this on the market were either run by groups like the Lord's Resistance Army or were known middlemen for said groups. This is not a conspiracy theory, a plethora of NGOs, the UN, and even the US congress have all published detailed reports on this, google search 'conflict minerals' for a basic introduction. The money that these companies brought in to these rebel groups during the Second Congolese War was vitally necessary for their day-to-day operation, this goes without fucking question by anyone involved (Gerard Prunier's books deal with this question at some length), and that money came almost exclusively from tech companies.

It seems to go without saying that if recruitment is a legitimate target for murder then so is financing. In that case why isn't Dell's President a legitimate target for assassination? Or at least the head of the manufacturing department that oversees paying for said material goods?

Even if I were to spot you that the companies didn't know that they were trading in bloody goods (and they did), let me offer a separate question. The debut of the PlayStation 2 is tied with a 500% price increase in the price of Coltan. In the world where the Congolese Civil War was dependent, almost exclusively, on the price of Coltan how is the head of marketing for Sony not guilty of creating conditions that jeopardize the Democratic Republic of Congo while Al-Aulaqi's exhortations that people join Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Penninsula are a threat to the United States?

One gave money, the other bodies. It seems both are legitimate targets under your rubric.

A. If talking about the duty to resist and oppose the United States is what it takes to be labelled a legitimate target, are the Black Panthers legitimate targets for drone strikes inside the US? Is Frank Wilderson, a professor at UC Irvine who says that Civil Society must be completely undone in order to have something akin to justice, a recruiter and a legitimate target? How about radical feminist/queer activists who oppose the US military as an overarching patriarchal institution that atomizes and internalizes oppression? I associate with people who say we have a moral obligation to violently oppose animal agriculture whenever we have the chance, does this make me a legitimate target for aerial boom-boom?

There are methods for violent and non-violent "resistance". Unless you are going to cite specific examples, I can't give you a specific answer to any of this. Awlaki not only made generalized statments advocating for the outright killing of Americans, but also (as previously mentioned) directly recruited individuals who then carried out attacks of that nature. Further, he was operating from foreign soil as a member of an organization that Congress has specifically authorized military action against. So go back over the list you just put together and ask yourself if any of those come close to fitting that same criteria.

Frank Wilderson, point blank, says that there needs to be a violent uprising inside the United States in a Frantz Fanonian sense. Wilderson teaches this in his classroom(s), preaches it in his books, and reaches a wide-ranging audience. He says this is a moral duty. Is he a legitimate target for drone attack in his classroom? How about when he goes overseas? Is UC Irvine a legitimate target for violence for helping to fund his works, supporting his ideology materially, and by giving him an audience and creating material inducements for them to be favorable to his ideology? Is Duke University Press a legitimate target for violence for publishing and distributing his books?

If not, why not?

Let me ask a third question here. Can Principal Chief Bill John Baker of the Cherokee Nation, according to your rules of conduct, authorize a drone strike against Barack Obama for being the Commander-in-Chief of a country's armed forced that is occupying Cherokee land in contravention to treaty law?

[TheHammer]

Let's deal with this back-to-front:

B. Would a marketer for Dell or Apple be a legitimate target for Ugandan or the Congolese military strikes for encouraging people to buy products with minerals (e.g. coltan) inside their borders that directly support and subsidize terrorist and revolutionary groups (e.g. the Lord's Resistance Army, the FNI, etc.)?

Feel free to continue down your slippery slope to crazy town, but I'm not coming along for the ride. If Dell or Apple were in direct contact and encouraging attacks for terrorist or revolutionary groups you'd have a point. They are not, so you do not.

The reason myself and others object to this drone program is because it is the slippery slope. Quite literally the guidelines for the program have been self-described by the administration as uncodified and amorphous, there wasn't even a set procedure for deciding the legitimacy of drone strike targets as of the election. This means that questions of justification really do fucking matter.

You are making the case that someone who helps to create conditions that are vital to an organization's continuing operation are legitimate targets for drone strikes, specifically through recruitment in the case of Anwar Al-Aulaqi. That's really amorphous because beyond and I'm trying to force you to give a specific brightline.

Hence the question of the Congo: There is no doubt that companies like Dell, Apple, Sony, Toshiba, etc. were working with some of the worst groups known to human history. If they were making advance electronics they were using columbite-tantalite, usually called 'coltan', in their products. This was almost exclusively mined in the Congo and Rwanda, usually through slave labor at gunpoint. The mineral companies who sold this on the market were either run by groups like the Lord's Resistance Army or were known middlemen for said groups. This is not a conspiracy theory, a plethora of NGOs, the UN, and even the US congress have all published detailed reports on this, google search 'conflict minerals' for a basic introduction. The money that these companies brought in to these rebel groups during the Second Congolese War was vitally necessary for their day-to-day operation, this goes without fucking question by anyone involved (Gerard Prunier's books deal with this question at some length), and that money came almost exclusively from tech companies.

It seems to go without saying that if recruitment is a legitimate target for murder then so is financing. In that case why isn't Dell's President a legitimate target for assassination? Or at least the head of the manufacturing department that oversees paying for said material goods?

Even if I were to spot you that the companies didn't know that they were trading in bloody goods (and they did), let me offer a separate question. The debut of the PlayStation 2 is tied with a 500% price increase in the price of Coltan. In the world where the Congolese Civil War was dependent, almost exclusively, on the price of Coltan how is the head of marketing for Sony not guilty of creating conditions that jeopardize the Democratic Republic of Congo while Al-Aulaqi's exhortations that people join Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Penninsula are a threat to the United States?

One gave money, the other bodies. It seems both are legitimate targets under your rubric.

I think your linkages are rather tenuous at best. With your "six degrees of separation" I'm sure you'll then say everyone that bought a PS2 was then also guilty and thus a reasonable target. It seems you are wanting a black and white answer when there are so many shades of grey under a situation like this. If you are fighting a war, you could make a loose justification that anyone who helps your enemy, either directly or indirectly, is a legitimate target. However, in contrasting Awlaki giving direct support in the way of recruitment and direction of persons for to carry out attacks, and indirect support of a company purchasing material from a militant regime, the person providing direct support is a more legitimate target.

A. If talking about the duty to resist and oppose the United States is what it takes to be labelled a legitimate target, are the Black Panthers legitimate targets for drone strikes inside the US? Is Frank Wilderson, a professor at UC Irvine who says that Civil Society must be completely undone in order to have something akin to justice, a recruiter and a legitimate target? How about radical feminist/queer activists who oppose the US military as an overarching patriarchal institution that atomizes and internalizes oppression? I associate with people who say we have a moral obligation to violently oppose animal agriculture whenever we have the chance, does this make me a legitimate target for aerial boom-boom?

There are methods for violent and non-violent "resistance". Unless you are going to cite specific examples, I can't give you a specific answer to any of this. Awlaki not only made generalized statments advocating for the outright killing of Americans, but also (as previously mentioned) directly recruited individuals who then carried out attacks of that nature. Further, he was operating from foreign soil as a member of an organization that Congress has specifically authorized military action against. So go back over the list you just put together and ask yourself if any of those come close to fitting that same criteria.

Frank Wilderson, point blank, says that there needs to be a violent uprising inside the United States in a Frantz Fanonian sense. Wilderson teaches this in his classroom(s), preaches it in his books, and reaches a wide-ranging audience. He says this is a moral duty. Is he a legitimate target for drone attack in his classroom? How about when he goes overseas? Is UC Irvine a legitimate target for violence for helping to fund his works, supporting his ideology materially, and by giving him an audience and creating material inducements for them to be favorable to his ideology? Is Duke University Press a legitimate target for violence for publishing and distributing his books?

If not, why not?

Again, I'm going to need specifics. Not your generalizations and paraphrasing, but actual quotes. The generic "calling for an uprising", even a violent one, has been deemed free speech (Brandenburg V. Ohio). Free speech protections are rather far reaching, however there is a line that can't be crossed. I'm assuming none of the individuals you mentioned has crossed that line otherwise they would have been arrested and prosecuted by now.

The additional criteria and justification for targeting Awlaki by the military (no need to even get specific on drones) is that he recruited/directed individuals who then carried out attacks, and was operating from foreign soil as a member of a terrorist organization, against whom Congress has authorized Military action. Your examples do not fit that criteria.

Let me ask a third question here. Can Principal Chief Bill John Baker of the Cherokee Nation, according to your rules of conduct, authorize a drone strike against Barack Obama for being the Commander-in-Chief of a country's armed forced that is occupying Cherokee land in contravention to treaty law?

If he felt that his nation's rights were violated, he could certainly pull a Kim Jong and declare the treaty null and void and threaten attack. Of course, given the obvious disparity in the forces under Baker's command, and the forces under Barrack Obama's command, such a move probably wouldn't be wise on his part.

[Ziggy Stardust]

If he felt that his nation's rights were violated, he could certainly pull a Kim Jong and declare the treaty null and void and threaten attack. Of course, given the obvious disparity in the forces under Baker's command, and the forces under Barrack Obama's command, such a move probably wouldn't be wise on his part.

Does this mean your argument just boils down to, "Shut the fuck up, we're America and we will do whatever the fuck we want because we're too strong to be stopped"?

Because that is the apparent implication of your post, here. What does the disparity of forces have to do with the legal and ethical legitimacy of the hypothetical posed?

[TheHammer]

If he felt that his nation's rights were violated, he could certainly pull a Kim Jong and declare the treaty null and void and threaten attack. Of course, given the obvious disparity in the forces under Baker's command, and the forces under Barrack Obama's command, such a move probably wouldn't be wise on his part.

Does this mean your argument just boils down to, "Shut the fuck up, we're America and we will do whatever the fuck we want because we're too strong to be stopped"?

Because that is the apparent implication of your post, here. What does the disparity of forces have to do with the legal and ethical legitimacy of the hypothetical posed?

Ziggy, there you go trying to "boil down" arguments again. How many times have I told you that you can't do that?

The point, since that wasn't clear to you, is that just because you may have a legal and or moral justification for taking action doesn't mean that it is wise to do so because there are always consequences.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ziggy, there you go trying to "boil down" arguments again. How many times have I told you that you can't do that?

To my memory you have never done so. And why does succinctness bother you so, anyway? While I agree in principle that oversimplification of an argument can be bad in that some issues have a degree of nuance that is important to capture, you can't arbitrarily decide that any and all simplifications are bad. You have to demonstrate why my simplification is violating the essential premise of your argument, or why it is oversimplified, you can't just rule by fiat that it isn't true because it took fewer words to say.

The point, since that wasn't clear to you, is that just because you may have a legal and or moral justification for taking action doesn't mean that it is wise to do so because there are always consequences.

Which has absolutely fuck all to do with the debate, or anything else in the thread? Forgive me for assuming that you were attempting to make a reasoned and coherent argument, as opposed to just spewing out whatever random crap pops into your head. This entire thing is just a huge red herring. Review the context of the discussion here:

1) You made the statement that the American government was justified in its killing of Al-Awlaki, as he was a legitimate target
2) Straha brought up several examples demonstrating how loose the definition of a "legitimate target" can be. The obvious implication here is that even if Al-Awlaki was legitimate as is legally defined, that in and of itself is not proof that he was legitimate in a moral/ethical sense. To put it another way: Straha asked you why the definition of a "legitimate target" is appropriate.
3) Your response to this is to say that Straha's examples are invalid because Al-Awlaki was qualitatively different. And you repeat your claim that he was a legitimate target.
4) Straha then explains why his examples are valid. Since he already stated it beautifully, I will quote him directly:

You are making the case that someone who helps to create conditions that are vital to an organization's continuing operation are legitimate targets for drone strikes, specifically through recruitment in the case of Anwar Al-Aulaqi. That's really amorphous because beyond and I'm trying to force you to give a specific bright line.

Part of this post is the example about Chief Bill John Baker of the Cherokee Nation. It is obvious that the point of the hypothetical is to get you to apply the logic you are using to justify the killing of Al-Awlaki to a different context to see if it continues to hold water.
5) Your response to this hypothetical, the purpose of which I just outlined, is to remark that it would be a bad idea because America is so powerful. You then clarify that abstract legal and moral concerns are irrelevant next to real consequences.

Do you honestly not see how utterly out of context that is? What you should be doing is pointing out why the hypothetical is not analogous to reality, or how the internal logic of the hypothetical could be used to bolster your argument, or conceding the point.

So explain: what does the potency of consequences for your actions have to do with the underlying question of what criterion could be used to classify a target as legitimate? If Al-Awlaki represented a nation more powerful than the United States, would you then argue that he should not have been killed out of fear for the consequences?

[Straha]

I think your linkages are rather tenuous at best. With your "six degrees of separation" I'm sure you'll then say everyone that bought a PS2 was then also guilty and thus a reasonable target. It seems you are wanting a black and white answer when there are so many shades of grey under a situation like this. If you are fighting a war, you could make a loose justification that anyone who helps your enemy, either directly or indirectly, is a legitimate target. However, in contrasting Awlaki giving direct support in the way of recruitment and direction of persons for to carry out attacks, and indirect support of a company purchasing material from a militant regime, the person providing direct support is a more legitimate target.

1. They are not tenuous links. Let me be absolutely crystal clear about this: Dell, Apple, Sony, Toshiba, and IBM each gave millions of dollars to organizations that the U.S. Congress clearly lists as 'terrorist' groups. Organizations which fight against state stability, which use child soldiers and slave labor as a part of day-to-day operations, and who employ rape as a deliberate part of their arsenal. In the world where the President of Dell is giving millions of dollars a year to a 'terrorist' organization can the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo blow him up with a drone strike? Can President Obama? This is a simple fucking question, stop ducking it.

2. This isn't a war. A war requires, legally, two nation-states engaged in hostilities against each other, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula isn't a nation-state. Moreover, the United States has legally made its position clear multiple times that this is explicitly not a war. And in the world of Al-Qaeda this isn't even fighting a clear organization, AQAP and other groups are decentralized, have little to no hierarchy, and operate in an utterly nebulous way where their naming is largely based on self-identifying with an ideology. To claim that someone is a clear target is an absurdity because there are no clearly demarcated sides in this conflict. This is why:

3. Black and White Legalities matter. I'll just Carl Schmitt/William Rasch this. The enlightenment/Westphalian world is based around having clear and distinct friend/enemy distinctions to know how to direct violence and civil protections. This is why things like citizenship and the rules of war matter, because otherwise it becomes impossible to differentiate who we can blow the fuck up and who gets to sleep secure in bed at night. This is also why we have trials and rules of legal procedure, so that we can have a system to know when someone has transgressed the law, make sure their expulsion is legitimate. This is why people wig out about Al-Aulaqi's assassination, he was a U.S. Citizen with protected rights that were disregarded without trial or procedure beyond say-so from Obama. That sets a dangerous and very loose precedent, and the onus is on you to provide a clear distinction as to when violence can and can't be used otherwise that 'shades of grey' argument you're making legitimates things like blowing up people who laptops from companies that fund terrorist organizations.

So where is your brightline?

Again, I'm going to need specifics. Not your generalizations and paraphrasing, but actual quotes. The generic "calling for an uprising", even a violent one, has been deemed free speech (Brandenburg V. Ohio). Free speech protections are rather far reaching, however there is a line that can't be crossed. I'm assuming none of the individuals you mentioned has crossed that line otherwise they would have been arrested and prosecuted by now.

Stop ducking the question. Where's that line? If you're going to say it exists defend it.

The additional criteria and justification for targeting Awlaki by the military (no need to even get specific on drones) is that he recruited/directed individuals who then carried out attacks, and was operating from foreign soil as a member of a terrorist organization, against whom Congress has authorized Military action. Your examples do not fit that criteria.

Al-Aulaqi is a citizen of the United States. If calling for violent revolution is a protected right under the first amendment then saying he's a legitimate target for extinction through a congressional edict and presidential directive amounts to nothing more than a Bill of Attainder, something specifically banned under the constitution.

This is pretty fucking clear. Your stance justifies the extermination of just about anyone on arbitrary standards created by Congress. Give us a brightline.

[TheHammer]

Ziggy, there you go trying to "boil down" arguments again. How many times have I told you that you can't do that?

To my memory you have never done so. And why does succinctness bother you so, anyway? While I agree in principle that oversimplification of an argument can be bad in that some issues have a degree of nuance that is important to capture, you can't arbitrarily decide that any and all simplifications are bad. You have to demonstrate why my simplification is violating the essential premise of your argument, or why it is oversimplified, you can't just rule by fiat that it isn't true because it took fewer words to say.

Your statement was a blatant mischaracterization of my argument. You can't "boil down" an argument removing all context and have anything left but a strawman which is exactly what was left.

The point, since that wasn't clear to you, is that just because you may have a legal and or moral justification for taking action doesn't mean that it is wise to do so because there are always consequences.

Which has absolutely fuck all to do with the debate, or anything else in the thread? Forgive me for assuming that you were attempting to make a reasoned and coherent argument, as opposed to just spewing out whatever random crap pops into your head. This entire thing is just a huge red herring.

You're right, it WAS a huge red herring for it to even have been brought up. I need to learn to stop entertaining these irrelevent points because it distracts from the discussion at hand...

Review the context of the discussion here:

Oh, so NOW you're concerned about context.

1) You made the statement that the American government was justified in its killing of Al-Awlaki, as he was a legitimate target

Yes I did, and specifically Awlaki has been debated many times on this board during which time the case was made pretty clear. Only but the most pig headed and delusional people still feel like they need to make him their champion, and poster child against the idea of using drones.

2) Straha brought up several examples demonstrating how loose the definition of a "legitimate target" can be. The obvious implication here is that even if Al-Awlaki was legitimate as is legally defined, that in and of itself is not proof that he was legitimate in a moral/ethical sense. To put it another way: Straha asked you why the definition of a "legitimate target" is appropriate.

Obviously the centerpiece of this entire debate pertains to the legal definition. Moral/Ethical questions have even greater shades of grey weightng "lessers of two evils" against ones own moral code.

But as to the moreal/ethetical aspect: If these men would be legitimate military targets if they were of any nationality other than American, then why should their status as American citizens convey upon them special protections?

3) Your response to this is to say that Straha's examples are invalid because Al-Awlaki was qualitatively different. And you repeat your claim that he was a legitimate target.

Awlaki was brought up as the example of this drone policy in actual use and is central to the issue at hand. You are wanting to know "well who would this policy be used against?" Since Awlaki is the example we are using, and the prime example that always gets brought up during debates over this policy, a qualitative comparison is completely justified.

I don't entertain these "well under the loose definitions used, you or I could be targeted by drones" because the idea is fucking asinine. There are plenty of powers a President has that could theoretically be abused, but in practice they aren't abused because of the ultimate consequences. Theoretically, since the President has the power to pardon crimes, all he would have to do would be to make a vague inference (legally protected speech) that he wished someone were dead, and then subsequently pardon anyone who carried out his wishes.

4) Straha then explains why his examples are valid. Since he already stated it beautifully, I will quote him directly:

You are making the case that someone who helps to create conditions that are vital to an organization's continuing operation are legitimate targets for drone strikes, specifically through recruitment in the case of Anwar Al-Aulaqi. That's really amorphous because beyond and I'm trying to force you to give a specific bright line.

I already answered this point.

Part of this post is the example about Chief Bill John Baker of the Cherokee Nation. It is obvious that the point of the hypothetical is to get you to apply the logic you are using to justify the killing of Al-Awlaki to a different context to see if it continues to hold water.
5) Your response to this hypothetical, the purpose of which I just outlined, is to remark that it would be a bad idea because America is so powerful. You then clarify that abstract legal and moral concerns are irrelevant next to real consequences.

Could the Cherokee nation be "legally and morally justified" in taking military action against the US? Absolutely. As could dozens of nations around the world and vice versa. My second point was to give a reason as to why they wouldn't choose to do so, not because they weren't justified, but because of the consequences. Again as previously mentioned, this is a red herring to the discussion at hand and I'm not going to entertain it any further.

Do you honestly not see how utterly out of context that is? What you should be doing is pointing out why the hypothetical is not analogous to reality, or how the internal logic of the hypothetical could be used to bolster your argument, or conceding the point.

You are correct. The whole thing is way out of context. Moving on.

So explain: what does the potency of consequences for your actions have to do with the underlying question of what criterion could be used to classify a target as legitimate? If Al-Awlaki represented a nation more powerful than the United States, would you then argue that he should not have been killed out of fear for the consequences?

The answer: it had nothing to do with legitimacy. I was simply making a statement that they would need both the right and ability to act.

[TheHammer]

I think your linkages are rather tenuous at best. With your "six degrees of separation" I'm sure you'll then say everyone that bought a PS2 was then also guilty and thus a reasonable target. It seems you are wanting a black and white answer when there are so many shades of grey under a situation like this. If you are fighting a war, you could make a loose justification that anyone who helps your enemy, either directly or indirectly, is a legitimate target. However, in contrasting Awlaki giving direct support in the way of recruitment and direction of persons for to carry out attacks, and indirect support of a company purchasing material from a militant regime, the person providing direct support is a more legitimate target.

1. They are not tenuous links. Let me be absolutely crystal clear about this: Dell, Apple, Sony, Toshiba, and IBM each gave millions of dollars to organizations that the U.S. Congress clearly lists as 'terrorist' groups. Organizations which fight against state stability, which use child soldiers and slave labor as a part of day-to-day operations, and who employ rape as a deliberate part of their arsenal. In the world where the President of Dell is giving millions of dollars a year to a 'terrorist' organization can the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo blow him up with a drone strike? Can President Obama? This is a simple fucking question, stop ducking it.

I didn't duck it, I answered it quite plainly that they could be considered legitimate targets. But that some targets are more legitimate than others. As should be obvious, someone could be a "legitimate target" and still not be targeted. Is that not clear?

2. This isn't a war. A war requires, legally, two nation-states engaged in hostilities against each other, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula isn't a nation-state. Moreover, the United States has legally made its position clear multiple times that this is explicitly not a war. And in the world of Al-Qaeda this isn't even fighting a clear organization, AQAP and other groups are decentralized, have little to no hierarchy, and operate in an utterly nebulous way where their naming is largely based on self-identifying with an ideology. To claim that someone is a clear target is an absurdity because there are no clearly demarcated sides in this conflict. This is why:

3. Black and White Legalities matter. I'll just Carl Schmitt/William Rasch this. The enlightenment/Westphalian world is based around having clear and distinct friend/enemy distinctions to know how to direct violence and civil protections. This is why things like citizenship and the rules of war matter, because otherwise it becomes impossible to differentiate who we can blow the fuck up and who gets to sleep secure in bed at night. This is also why we have trials and rules of legal procedure, so that we can have a system to know when someone has transgressed the law, make sure their expulsion is legitimate. This is why people wig out about Al-Aulaqi's assassination, he was a U.S. Citizen with protected rights that were disregarded without trial or procedure beyond say-so from Obama. That sets a dangerous and very loose precedent, and the onus is on you to provide a clear distinction as to when violence can and can't be used otherwise that 'shades of grey' argument you're making legitimates things like blowing up people who laptops from companies that fund terrorist organizations.

Semantic games over whether you want to call it a "war" aren't going to fly here. It is a military action and falls under the same rules as a war in so far as determining who is and is not a member of "the enemy". And as is the case with Military actions, there are far fewer black and white situations and many more shades of grey. After all, under the rules of war you can "legally" kill, destroy property etc, that under normal law obviously would not be legal. Through international convention, that's not carte blanche to do whatever you want to whomever, but it does allow for "legitimate" targeting and killing of people who are engaged in hostilities against your nation.

So where is your brightline?

Again, I'm going to need specifics. Not your generalizations and paraphrasing, but actual quotes. The generic "calling for an uprising", even a violent one, has been deemed free speech (Brandenburg V. Ohio). Free speech protections are rather far reaching, however there is a line that can't be crossed. I'm assuming none of the individuals you mentioned has crossed that line otherwise they would have been arrested and prosecuted by now.

Stop ducking the question. Where's that line? If you're going to say it exists defend it.

The line is when you actually start to recruit people to make attacks, rather than vaguely saying they should "take place". The line is when you actually join organizations involved in terrorist activities, and provide direct support rather than praising them from afar.

The additional criteria and justification for targeting Awlaki by the military (no need to even get specific on drones) is that he recruited/directed individuals who then carried out attacks, and was operating from foreign soil as a member of a terrorist organization, against whom Congress has authorized Military action. Your examples do not fit that criteria.

Al-Aulaqi is a citizen of the United States. If calling for violent revolution is a protected right under the first amendment then saying he's a legitimate target for extinction through a congressional edict and presidential directive amounts to nothing more than a Bill of Attainder, something specifically banned under the constitution.

This is pretty fucking clear. Your stance justifies the extermination of just about anyone on arbitrary standards created by Congress. Give us a brightline.

He wasn't killed over his speech. He was killed for directly recruiting inviduals to carry out attacks. Individuals who then did infact carry out attacks with varying degrees of success. He had joined a militant organization actively engaged in hostilities with the United States, and was particpating from a command/control level, attacks on Americans. In my mind, its no different than if he had run off and joined the German Army in WWII and begun recruiting "assets" to take out targets in America.

My personal belief? I don't believe that incitement to violence should be considered free speech. SCOTUS err'd on the side of free speech in Brandenburg, and I can understand why they did so at the time. But I think if you're calling for the overthrow of government through violent means, or explicitly calling for people's deaths, with the reasonable expectation that those actions will be carried out, I don't feel you should be able to hide behind the first amendment. After all, if yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre isn't protected, why would yelling "fire!" to a man with an AK while gesturing towards a crowd of people be ok?

[Metahive]

He wasn't killed over his speech. He was killed for directly recruiting inviduals to carry out attacks. Individuals who then did infact carry out attacks with varying degrees of success. He had joined a militant organization actively engaged in hostilities with the United States, and was particpating from a command/control level, attacks on Americans. In my mind, its no different than if he had run off and joined the German Army in WWII and begun recruiting "assets" to take out targets in America.

So then...where's the charge of high treason that such behaviour should obviously come with? O yes, he was, like, about to annihilate the US with his nuclear jihadi superpowers so he absolutely had to be executed by presidential decree.

Along with his son, because he would otherwise have sought vengeance...or that's how the SS justified murdering children anyway.