US tries to assassinate its own citizen

[Thanas]

IPs do not match, but the quality of the posts definitely does.

[Simon_Jester]

Still, TheHammer is right. Absolutely right. Face it, guys, that is how America conducts its world affairs, how it pursues its foreign interests, that is what it does to the world. That is how America became numero uno, big shot, top dog, the mighty and the righty, etcetera.

All these disgusting things TheHammer has said? Well, they're all the disgusting things America has done.

Think about that. Look around you.

Apparently the high and mighty of your nation, and all nations really, are subscribing to TheHammer's newsletter.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that that makes them all a bunch of fatties.

What makes it particularly problematic is that it isn't quite that simple- if it were, opposition to American foreign policy would be a lot easier to organize- witness the protests regarding the Vietnam War, which had a number of effects both good and bad but were definitely based in large part on the complaint that the US was engaged in brutally predatory foreign policy for petty reasons.

The difficulty comes from the fact that there's two competing strains in American foreign policy, the idealist and the asshole, and that the assholes are very effective at using idealism as protective camouflage. Thus, invading Afghanistan genuinely did make sense on "If someone tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back" grounds. Going after Osama bin Laden genuinely does make sense because he conspires to murderize huge numbers of people in pursuit of horrible political goals. These are things that you can get behind without being TheHam and spending all your time huffing and puffing about how powerful 'MURCA is.

At the same time, though, these relatively sensible steps have been used as camouflage by assholes whose political theory boils down to "we can do whatever we please, because we are strong enough, therefore we should do whatever we please to anyone we can find." Which gets us things like invading Iraq and going after al-Awlaki. And this is often covered with a veneer of neocon rhetoric about "bringing freedom" and such: that's where the hypothesizing poindexters' callow associations come into play- to create theories which can be used to justify the actions of assholes.

But this creates a confused reaction among the American people. On the one hand, there are things which make sense on that basic, non-atrocious, "if someone tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back" level. Things which no reasonable person would oppose all that strongly. On the other hand, there are things which do not make sense on this level, which are easily seen as acts of naked and pointless aggression by people not caught up in the rhetoric.

In World War II, things were simple, because US actions made sense on the basic non-atrocious level. In Vietnam, things were simple, because US actions didn't make sense on that level, which made it easy to rally agreement on "get the fuck outta 'Nam." In the War on Terror, things are complicated, because the assholes have mixed their asshole behavior in with the stuff that makes sense, so when you respond you have to say more complicated things like "I think it's OK to drop a bomb on Osama bin Laden but not al-Awlaki and we should have invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq."

Which makes it harder to stay on message. And makes it easier for obfuscating assholes to come in and say "NO! WE ARE FIGHTING TERRORISTS! THIS IS WAR!" because they are trying to use the legacy of the OK stuff that makes sense as a smokescreen for the asshole behavior that makes no sense.

It is difficult to deal with, and it would be far less difficult if all American policy were governed by pure assholery.

[TheHammer]

It's good though, to see an Honest Platypus Cuckolding Animal go on blubbering about "hurf hurf the real world!" to make all that might makes right crap okay.

"Your country does shit to other people"

"WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD BUD"

Because, really, that's how these people think. Nobody really honestly gives a shit about the rest of the world. The only real world to them is America, the rest of the world really isn't real because to them the people living there aren't real people. That's the kind of mindset these people have. As long as they have power, that's all that matters. Then they can use this to justify atrocious acts to further acquire more power. Be it military strength, money, whatever. It's like the stroking hand of the free market.

Still, TheHammer is right. Absolutely right. Face it, guys, that is how America conducts its world affairs, how it pursues its foreign interests, that is what it does to the world. That is how America became numero uno, big shot, top dog, the mighty and the righty, etcetera.

All these disgusting things TheHammer has said? Well, they're all the disgusting things America has done.

Think about that. Look around you.

Apparently the high and mighty of your nation, and all nations really, are subscribing to TheHammer's newsletter.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that that makes them all a bunch of fatties.

The point, which you clearly missed, was that with or without my approval "might makes right" is a fact of life, has been through out history, and isn't likely to change any time soon. Then you some how equate that to my endorsement of said inequity. I must conclude that you and metahive lack reading comprehension, which if English is a second language is perfectly understandable. If it isn't, then you are either dishonest, or simply a fucking moron.

[TheHammer]

for acting out exactly this attitude? Why else would you otherwise do your darndest to compound it by acting ever more "merican"?

BTW, Thanks for proving my point Metahive and Shroom on the rise of a new cultural slur. Keep on using it. I'm sure some of Shroom's postings will eventually make their way to Urban Dictionary.com THE authority on slurs, and then all my previous stances vindicated.

How's it slurring when it describes you and your ilk so accurately?

Actually it doesn't fucking fit at all. The fact that you are trying to attribute it as further proof of it being a slur - a denigrating term wrapped in an inaccurate stereotype. Keep on proving my point.

[Akhlut]

The point, which you clearly missed, was that with or without my approval "might makes right" is a fact of life, has been through out history, and isn't likely to change any time soon. Then you some how equate that to my endorsement of said inequity. I must conclude that you and metahive lack reading comprehension, which if English is a second language is perfectly understandable. If it isn't, then you are either dishonest, or simply a fucking moron.

He is pretty open about his affiliation and support of terrorist activities. True he hasn't had a "trial" but I really don't have a problem with killing someone like that.

I'm saying if you are actively leading a terrorist organization, promoting the killing of innocent civilians, while evading arrest in a foreign nation, your death on the orders of the President is justified.

Seems like you're perfectly okay with might makes right when it is with something you agree with (here, assassinating an American citizen without due process).

[Thanas]

The point, which you clearly missed, was that with or without my approval "might makes right" is a fact of life, has been through out history, and isn't likely to change any time soon. Then you some how equate that to my endorsement of said inequity. I must conclude that you and metahive lack reading comprehension, which if English is a second language is perfectly understandable. If it isn't, then you are either dishonest, or simply a fucking moron.

So now you disagree with this policy? Funny, cause you sure as heck are its most vocal defender, defending it a lot against criticism.

[TheHammer]

The point, which you clearly missed, was that with or without my approval "might makes right" is a fact of life, has been through out history, and isn't likely to change any time soon. Then you some how equate that to my endorsement of said inequity. I must conclude that you and metahive lack reading comprehension, which if English is a second language is perfectly understandable. If it isn't, then you are either dishonest, or simply a fucking moron.

He is pretty open about his affiliation and support of terrorist activities. True he hasn't had a "trial" but I really don't have a problem with killing someone like that.

I'm saying if you are actively leading a terrorist organization, promoting the killing of innocent civilians, while evading arrest in a foreign nation, your death on the orders of the President is justified.

Seems like you're perfectly okay with might makes right when it is with something you agree with (here, assassinating an American citizen without due process).

I fail to see what one has to do with the other. I'd prefer to live in a world without terrorist fuckheads like Anwar. But since we do, I know we have to deal with it in ways that are sometimes less than ideal. The legality for killing him has already discussed and I don't feel the need to rehash. If you want to talk morality, well I have no sympathy for Anwar or his fellow terrorists.

The point, which you clearly missed, was that with or without my approval "might makes right" is a fact of life, has been through out history, and isn't likely to change any time soon. Then you some how equate that to my endorsement of said inequity. I must conclude that you and metahive lack reading comprehension, which if English is a second language is perfectly understandable. If it isn't, then you are either dishonest, or simply a fucking moron.

So now you disagree with this policy? Funny, cause you sure as heck are its most vocal defender, defending it a lot against criticism.

I defend certain aspects of it, and I accept others because there is no way to change it. We don't live in an ideal world, so I do not allow myself to view it through rose colored glasses. I find it ironic that people are calling Obama a "piece of shit" and the like for authorizing the killing of a specific man, who himself authorizes and supports the killing of numerous random civilians.

I assume many of you are familiar with the way the justice system in the U.S. works. It runs very fucking slowly. Even if it were possible to try Anwar in absentia here in the U.S., then you're still looking at years with appeals - Now, with people in custody we can afford for it to take that long. However Anwar is on the loose recruiting future suicide bombers, and gunmen to attack and kill American civilians. If we pass up the opportunity to kill this guy, and through his actions he or his subordinates manage to kill those civilians, then THAT would be a tragedy. And its not as if he has no options, as noted he could always surrender.

I don't know how to make it any more clear. In my mind, its the lesser of two evils.

[Simon_Jester]

And, I ask again, what assurances are in place to make sure that this "lesser of two evils" judgment is not made against anyone the US government finds troublesome, either abroad or at home?

Law matters.

[TheHammer]

And, I ask again, what assurances are in place to make sure that this "lesser of two evils" judgment is not made against anyone the US government finds troublesome, either abroad or at home?

Law matters.

What assurances does anyone have of anything? As noted, the Obama administration went to great extent to determine whether his targeting was legal and have made no secret about it. They certainly must feel that it can defend it under existing laws. I assume that if someone were to abuse a power like this, they certainly wouldn't want it to be known publicly as it would likely not be legally defensible The real check on government is going to be through the media, of which there is plenty both foreign and domestic. If people start appearing on the list for questionable reasons, then you'll certainly see a backlash.

[Akhlut]

And, I ask again, what assurances are in place to make sure that this "lesser of two evils" judgment is not made against anyone the US government finds troublesome, either abroad or at home?

Law matters.

What assurances does anyone have of anything? As noted, the Obama administration went to great extent to determine whether his targeting was legal and have made no secret about it. They certainly must feel that it can defend it under existing laws. I assume that if someone were to abuse a power like this, they certainly wouldn't want it to be known publicly as it would likely not be legally defensible The real check on government is going to be through the media, of which there is plenty both foreign and domestic. If people start appearing on the list for questionable reasons, then you'll certainly see a backlash.

Just like Gitmo holdings, the entire war in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, the Bush adminstration funding of religious groups which is expressly forbidden, or anything of that nature which was pretty much very easy to verify and could/would easily be exposed by the media and which resulted in about diddly-squat for changes.

For a guy going on about realpolitik and how the "real world" works, you sure seem confident that this can and will never be abused in the least.

[Thanas]

Especially when that "media" regularly submits story for editoria approval to the Government and even agreed to hide abuses from the populace (like the Bush wiretapping scandals).

[TheHammer]

And, I ask again, what assurances are in place to make sure that this "lesser of two evils" judgment is not made against anyone the US government finds troublesome, either abroad or at home?

Law matters.

What assurances does anyone have of anything? As noted, the Obama administration went to great extent to determine whether his targeting was legal and have made no secret about it. They certainly must feel that it can defend it under existing laws. I assume that if someone were to abuse a power like this, they certainly wouldn't want it to be known publicly as it would likely not be legally defensible The real check on government is going to be through the media, of which there is plenty both foreign and domestic. If people start appearing on the list for questionable reasons, then you'll certainly see a backlash.

Just like Gitmo holdings, the entire war in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, the Bush adminstration funding of religious groups which is expressly forbidden, or anything of that nature which was pretty much very easy to verify and could/would easily be exposed by the media and which resulted in about diddly-squat for changes.

There was significant backlash against the Iraq war, certain provisions of the Patriot act, and the Gitmo holdings. It took a while, and still has a way to go, but the Iraq War is probably one of the big reasons Obama is president in the first place.

I don't know what you are referring to in regards to "funding of religious groups" so I can't speak to that.

For a guy going on about realpolitik and how the "real world" works, you sure seem confident that this can and will never be abused in the least.

When did I ever say that? I merely said that in this instance they got it right. When asked for assurance this would "never be abused" what assurance do we have that any power will "never be abused"? That's about as real as it gets.

Especially when that "media" regularly submits story for editoria approval to the Government and even agreed to hide abuses from the populace (like the Bush wiretapping scandals).

The Media will somtimes delay the release of a story, but I'm not aware of any outright quashing by the government. If you have an example, please let me know. Obviously if the government had true editorial control over the media many embarassing stories would never have seen the light of day.

[Broomstick]

What assurances does anyone have of anything? As noted, the Obama administration went to great extent to determine whether his targeting was legal and have made no secret about it. They certainly must feel that it can defend it under existing laws. I assume that if someone were to abuse a power like this, they certainly wouldn't want it to be known publicly as it would likely not be legally defensible The real check on government is going to be through the media, of which there is plenty both foreign and domestic. If people start appearing on the list for questionable reasons, then you'll certainly see a backlash.

Even if we accept for this discussion Obama can be trusted with such power (and nevermind all those people who would be happy to dispute that point) we have zero guarantee the next guy is that trustworthy.

On top of that - what makes you think that such a list will always be made public? Far too easy to declare it secret for "national security", at which point the chances of a backlash drop significantly. How would you know to protest something you don't know about?

[Thanas]

So let me get this straight-ýou still have faith in a Government that, when it messes up, even refuses to compensate the victims with anything, not even an apology? Oh, and as for assurances as to why some power will not be abused? Publicity and judicial review. Neither of which are a given in this casse.

And Hammer, you are not wiggling out from the legal challenges here. Note that in this very thread we have several lawyers, at least one police officer and others all saying you are wrong about the law. Your response is to say "Pfft, foreigners, who cares about you" (which is ironic, considering that Kamakazie Sith has probably spent way more time protecting US society during his service than you or go "LOL REALPOLITIK". Nevermind that you do not understand what that word means, I find your entire debating strategy so far utterly dishonest.

[Master of Ossus]

This website succinctly sums up the argument.

Let me spell it out, though, in even more explicit terms so it will be (hopefully) clear enough so that even people who cannot tell why having economic sanctions on another country does not place the two countries into an "ongoing armed conflict" can figure it out:

1. The US's operations are legal under international law.

Both al-Awlaki and Osama bin Laden are lawful targets. There is an ongoing armed conflict between the US and al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations and groups, such as the Taliban. As part of this ongoing conflict, the US is permitted to exercise lethal force against military targets.

Both al-Awlaki and bin Laden have supported al Qaeda operations, and neither have surrendered. Some may wish to take particular note that the citizenship of the individuals is totally irrelevant to whether or not they are lawful targets. It doesn't matter if bin Laden were sleeping, naked, by himself, on a beach on an island that's 500 miles from the nearest firearm. The US would be entitled to send in a SEAL team to drop a laser-guided 2,000 pound bomb on his head without warning or inviting an opportunity to surrender. Precisely the same thing is true of al-Awlaki. The US doesn't have to ask them to surrender; it doesn't have to give them a chance to surrender. It doesn't have to stop and wait to evaluate whether the flag that the guy is making is white or any other color. The US may employ lethal force against them until they have surrendered.

Some may also wish to note that there is no due process right for lawful military targets. A nation that is engaged in the exercise of self-defense as part of an ongoing armed conflict may employ lethal force without due process concerns. Asking for evidence, proof, and similar is not part of the equation because those are legal terms that form a part of due process. Under international law, nothing of the sort is owed. These concepts come into play (if at all) after the target has surrendered; not before. International law recognizes that military forces do not have time to engage in judicial review and it expects nothing of the sort. Any "remedy" is imposed after-the-fact. For instance, a member of the military that employs lethal force against an unlawful target is a war criminal. The target cannot object to gunshots by complaining that the opposing military force has not respected his due process rights.

It also complies with rules of proportionality. In general, targeting someone is fine provided that the attack is not "expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." A targeted killing of al-Awlaki or bin Laden doesn't remotely fit this criteria because it's directed against a single individual, and the weapons used have been generally small enough scale such that the collateral damage is relatively small.

As for the location of the individual, the issue turns on whether the state in which the person is located is "unwilling or unable" to prosecute the conflict against that individual itself. In the US's case, this is generally not true. In the case of Yemen and Pakistan it almost certainly is true. Both countries have become systematic havens for terrorists from, among others, al Qaeda and the Taliban. Conducting attacks on their territory is therefore lawful even against their objections. While the US may engage in some sort of diplomatic engagement with these states, they are not obligated to and the legality of the strikes does not turn upon such engagement.

2. America's use of lethal force against al-Awlaki conforms with domestic law.

In fact, it was specifically authorized by the Authorization for Force Against Terrorists Act. Moreover, under domestic law, it does not constitute an assassination because these targets are lawful under international law (see above).

Conclusion:

It is quite telling that opponents of this view try to couch their claims in legal terms, but do not cite the relevant law involved. The closest that the article comes is citing to the dissent (the guys whose opinion is NOT LAW) in a case which is entirely distinguishable because the individual involved had already surrendered.

[Simon_Jester]

Some may also wish to note that there is no due process right for lawful military targets. A nation that is engaged in the exercise of self-defense as part of an ongoing armed conflict may employ lethal force without due process concerns. Asking for evidence, proof, and similar is not part of the equation because those are legal terms that form a part of due process. Under international law, nothing of the sort is owed. International law recognizes that military forces do not have time to engage in judicial review and it expects nothing of the sort. Any "remedy" is imposed after-the-fact. For instance, a member of the military that employs lethal force against an unlawful target is a war criminal.

So, what is the process by which lawful targets are chosen?

The use of the word "lawful" in "lawful target" suggests that there are, well, laws involved. If we are to use this notion of "lawful military targets," then we need a law, or at any rate a policy, for identifying who is and is not a military target. Some definable procedure at work here beyond the president of the United States pointing at a person and saying "he's a terrorist, get him, boys!"

So what is it? What makes al-Awlaki a military target, and Noam Chomsky not a military target? What keeps us from expanding the scope of the war arbitrarily, on a whim, taking formerly neutral organizations or nations and deciding for the hell of it that they are now part of the Terrorist Enemy? What if tomorrow we declare the al-Jazeera television network to be a terrorist organization? Do all the people who work for that network become lawful targets, when they were not lawful targets yesterday?

Again, is there any formality or rule of evidence that needs to be observed here beyond some guy pointing at the new 'target' and saying "he's a terrorist, get him, boys!"
_________

As to the question of "remedies" imposed after the fact, that is a lovely idea for wars limited in time and space. If a war is fought against a definable opponent, with an end that comes when that enemy is defeated, we can afford to put things off until the war is over. But what if the war is fought against a nebulous opponent, one that almost by definition cannot be beaten in the sense that, say, the Confederate States of America were beaten?

So, you say we can try people for war crimes committed during the War on Terror after it ends. When will it end, so we can organize the trials?

It is obvious to anyone with a brain that a "War on Terror" cannot and will not end quickly. It can last more or less as long as the US government chooses to assert that it is still going on. Therefore, "all war crimes trials will wait until after the end of the War on Terror" is not good enough.

Organizations need oversight, oversight that doesn't just sit on its butt and procrastinate until everyone involved dies of old age.

Who is responsible for oversight in target selection in the War on Terror?

And it will be a bullshit argument if you pretend that "oh well we didn't have anyone like that in WWII!" is a good enough answer. Because in WWII, the situation was totally different. The enemies identified themselves, by being part of a formal organization, and there was a definite end to the war- we could stop shooting when the Axis powers quit fighting. Whereas in this war, there is no defined duration, no defined theater of operations, no way to draw lines between the battlefield and the non-battlefield.

And the only definition you've offered for "who should go on the US government's hit list?" in this war is "anyone who's on the hit list belongs there and should be there and you people are fucktards for questioning that."

Do you really expect this to be a satisfactory answer in a civilization based on the rule of law?

2. America's use of lethal force against al-Awlaki conforms with domestic law.
In fact, it was specifically authorized by the Authorization for Force Against Terrorists Act. Moreover, under domestic law, it does not constitute an assassination because these targets are lawful under international law (see above).

The Authorization for Force Against Terrorists Act is itself illegal, if it deprives American citizens of life without due process of law. "Congress says you can do it" is not "due process," and the Fifth Amendment trumps acts of Congress.

Conclusion:

It is quite telling that opponents of this view try to couch their claims in legal terms, but do not cite the relevant law involved. The closest that the article comes is citing to the dissent (the guys whose opinion is NOT LAW) in a case which is entirely distinguishable because the individual involved had already surrendered.

The relevant law is the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This takes precedent over any act of Congress, let alone any executive order.

Now, this does not apply to foreigners who have joined an army against us, but it does apply to American citizens. If said American citizen is encountered on a battlefield, a real one, where he is shooting at our troops, that's one thing- but when we're talking about premeditated assassination orders given by a man sitting in a chair in Washington, there is no argument of urgency or military importance that justifies ignoring the question of due process.

[Samuel]

So, what is the process by which lawful targets are chosen?

The use of the word "lawful" in "lawful target" suggests that there are, well, laws involved. If we are to use this notion of "lawful military targets," then we need a law, or at any rate a policy, for identifying who is and is not a military target. Some definable procedure at work here beyond the president of the United States pointing at a person and saying "he's a terrorist, get him, boys!"

The Geneva Convention defines who are lawful targets.

The Authorization for Force Against Terrorists Act is itself illegal, if it deprives American citizens of life without due process of law. "Congress says you can do it" is not "due process," and the Fifth Amendment trumps acts of Congress.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Block]

[
So what is it? What makes al-Awlaki a military target, and Noam Chomsky not a military target? What keeps us from expanding the scope of the war arbitrarily, on a whim, taking formerly neutral organizations or nations and deciding for the hell of it that they are now part of the Terrorist Enemy? What if tomorrow we declare the al-Jazeera television network to be a terrorist organization? Do all the people who work for that network become lawful targets, when they were not lawful targets yesterday?

Again, is there any formality or rule of evidence that needs to be observed here beyond some guy pointing at the new 'target' and saying "he's a terrorist, get him, boys!"
_________

You're trying to argue that targeting the leader of Al'Qaeda in Yemen, who actively recruits terrorists and by his own admission sends them to act against US forces in the Middle East and Afghanistan is the same as arbitrarily targeting Chomsky because he questions US actions? I'm just trying to clarify what your point is, because there seems to be a pretty big disconnect. The evidence against Al-Awlaki is more than just some guy saying he might be a terrorist. To be targeted like he is, to expend the kind of resources that it takes to bring someone like that down there has to be extremely damning evidence from multiple sources indicating that he is what is claimed (the process for this has gotten better and more streamlined since the height of the violence in Iraq in '07). Otherwise he's just not worth the expenditure.

As for your thing with Al-Jazeera, if it were PROVEN by intel that they were actively supporting and planning terrorist attacks and using the network's resources expressly for that purpose, then yes, they could be declared a terrorist organization, but it'd have to be multiple sources, multiple incidents, and a large portion of their staff to go that route. Otherwise the individual members would be tracked and handled as criminals, because they don't keep a large body of armed men surrounding important people while being hidden in remote areas. I think you're missing or intentionally ignoring the methods employed by the organization being a key to how violent and immediate the response to that organization is. Al-Jazeera's correspondants and employees are known as are their locations, so it's easier to treat them like criminals.

Al'Qaeda operates like an army, it gets treated like one. Its goal is to kill government forces and achive supremacy, the Mafia, to continue your example uses violence as a method to obtain its goal, but that goal is not to rule as a government, and there is your difference.

[Master of Ossus]

So, what is the process by which lawful targets are chosen?

The use of the word "lawful" in "lawful target" suggests that there are, well, laws involved. If we are to use this notion of "lawful military targets," then we need a law, or at any rate a policy, for identifying who is and is not a military target. Some definable procedure at work here beyond the president of the United States pointing at a person and saying "he's a terrorist, get him, boys!"

The Geneva Convention defines who are lawful targets.

Yes. Yes it does.

Too bad it supports my arguments.

The Authorization for Force Against Terrorists Act is itself illegal, if it deprives American citizens of life without due process of law. "Congress says you can do it" is not "due process," and the Fifth Amendment trumps acts of Congress.

Bullshit. The Fifth Amendment does not apply to military targets. Find ANY SOURCE OF LAW that suggests that it does. I have challenged you and your ilk repeatedly to do this. And you will fail, because there is no source of law which suggests that the Fifth Amendment's granting of due process applies during an ongoing armed conflict to a lawful target.

[K. A. Pital]

Let me spell it out, though, in even more explicit terms so it will be (hopefully) clear enough so that even people who cannot tell why having economic sanctions on another country does not place the two countries into an "ongoing armed conflict" can figure it out

Hezbollah is in an armed conflict. It has a right to kill people who are deemed a threat. End of story.

[Block]

Let me spell it out, though, in even more explicit terms so it will be (hopefully) clear enough so that even people who cannot tell why having economic sanctions on another country does not place the two countries into an "ongoing armed conflict" can figure it out

Hezbollah is in an armed conflict. It has a right to kill people who are deemed a threat. End of story.

Hezbollah is not a nation, it is a terrorist organization. End of story. People can make stupid statements all day.

[Alyeska]

Reading some responses in this thread and something struck me.

Band of Brothers. Episode 2. German soldier, born in Astoria Oregon. US Citizen, but a German soldier.

What rights does a US citizen have who joins a military of a country that is at war with the United States? MoO is stating that al-Awlaki is a military target and that changes the equation when dealing with him. Well how does US law handle US citizens that are actively members of an opposition military? Is it illegal to shoot them? Lets say a US citizen happens to become a very senior general of a country hostile to the US and more or less at war with the US. We bomb military installations all the time. Is it legal to bomb this US citizen who happens to be a general commanding a foreign army?

I can see where MoO is going. I don't necessarily agree, but the logic seems sound.

Its interesting. US constitution has nothing on the concept of insurgency really. It deals with Criminal element, and war time conditions. But what about that gray area between the two?

[Master of Ossus]

So, what is the process by which lawful targets are chosen?

For the last time, there is no legal process. Lawful targets are not entitled to due process of law. What part of this is so difficult for your walnut-sized brain to grasp?

The use of the word "lawful" in "lawful target" suggests that there are, well, laws involved. If we are to use this notion of "lawful military targets," then we need a law, or at any rate a policy, for identifying who is and is not a military target. Some definable procedure at work here beyond the president of the United States pointing at a person and saying "he's a terrorist, get him, boys!"

Yes. International law defines it.

Al-Awlaki clealry qualifies.

So what is it? What makes al-Awlaki a military target, and Noam Chomsky not a military target? What keeps us from expanding the scope of the war arbitrarily, on a whim, taking formerly neutral organizations or nations and deciding for the hell of it that they are now part of the Terrorist Enemy? What if tomorrow we declare the al-Jazeera television network to be a terrorist organization? Do all the people who work for that network become lawful targets, when they were not lawful targets yesterday?

Do I have to have the same conversation with every single one of you morons?

V. Constitutive elements of direct participation in hostilities
In order to qualify as direct participation in hostilities, a specific act must meet the
following cumulative criteria:
1. the act must be likely to adversely affect the military operations or military
capacity of a party to an armed conflict or, alternatively, to inflict death, injury,
or destruction on persons or objects protected against direct attack (threshold
of harm);
2. there must be a direct causal link between the act and the harm likely to result
either from that act, or from a coordinated military operation of which that act
constitutes an integral part (direct causation);
3. the act must be specifically designed to directly cause the required threshold of
harm in support of a party to the conflict and to the detriment of another
(belligerent nexus).

Al-Awlaki meets all of these criteria; Chomsky meets none of them.

Again, is there any formality or rule of evidence that needs to be observed here beyond some guy pointing at the new 'target' and saying "he's a terrorist, get him, boys!"

There's a formal rule; there's no rule of evidence. Evidence does not exist in this context.

As to the question of "remedies" imposed after the fact, that is a lovely idea for wars limited in time and space. If a war is fought against a definable opponent, with an end that comes when that enemy is defeated, we can afford to put things off until the war is over. But what if the war is fought against a nebulous opponent, one that almost by definition cannot be beaten in the sense that, say, the Confederate States of America were beaten?

What of it? How does that change the calculus in the slightest? Either someone is a war criminal or they are not.

So, you say we can try people for war crimes committed during the War on Terror after it ends. When will it end, so we can organize the trials?

No. AFTER THE ATTACK IS CARRIED OUT, moron.

It is obvious to anyone with a brain that a "War on Terror" cannot and will not end quickly. It can last more or less as long as the US government chooses to assert that it is still going on. Therefore, "all war crimes trials will wait until after the end of the War on Terror" is not good enough.

Organizations need oversight, oversight that doesn't just sit on its butt and procrastinate until everyone involved dies of old age.

Who is responsible for oversight in target selection in the War on Terror?

Ultimately, the President of the United States.

And it will be a bullshit argument if you pretend that "oh well we didn't have anyone like that in WWII!" is a good enough answer. Because in WWII, the situation was totally different. The enemies identified themselves, by being part of a formal organization, and there was a definite end to the war- we could stop shooting when the Axis powers quit fighting. Whereas in this war, there is no defined duration, no defined theater of operations, no way to draw lines between the battlefield and the non-battlefield.

I have no idea what you think this has to do with anything, but if you think the enemies identified themselves in WWII then you're full of shit. Moreover, there was no definite end to the War--no one knew, in 1944, if the Allies were going to win or when. No one.

Moreover, the US is not involved in an ongoing armed conflict with all terrorists because there are no ongoing hostilities between the US and all terrorist groups. There is obviously an ongoing armed conflict against Al Qaeda. Armed hostilities between the two sides have been continuous and unabated since 2001.

And the only definition you've offered for "who should go on the US government's hit list?" in this war is "anyone who's on the hit list belongs there and should be there and you people are fucktards for questioning that."

No. You're a fucktard because you insist on applying irrelevant standards, distorting and ignoring the law, and for repeatedly and dishonestly presenting utterly different scenarios as if they are in all ways identical.

Do you really expect this to be a satisfactory answer in a civilization based on the rule of law?

If you want to have a discussion about the law, cite one god damned source of law that supports your argument.

Despite repeated requests that you do so, the closest that anyone on your side has come to doing this is the OP, which dishonestly presents the dissent of a Supreme Court opinion which is obviously distinguishable (since it applies to someone who has already surrendered and already in custody).

The Authorization for Force Against Terrorists Act is itself illegal, if it deprives American citizens of life without due process of law. "Congress says you can do it" is not "due process," and the Fifth Amendment trumps acts of Congress.

The Fifth Amendment does not apply to military targets. Cite any god damned source of law which suggests that it does. ANY. SOURCE. OF LAW.

Now, this does not apply to foreigners who have joined an army against us, but it does apply to American citizens.

EVIDENCE?

If said American citizen is encountered on a battlefield, a real one, where he is shooting at our troops, that's one thing- but when we're talking about premeditated assassination orders given by a man sitting in a chair in Washington, there is no argument of urgency or military importance that justifies ignoring the question of due process.

No it's not. The two situations are precisely identical in terms of international and domestic law. International law does not say, "These guys are lawful targets unless they happen to be a citizen of your own country." The Fifth Amendment, and domestic law, makes no such distinction.

[Master of Ossus]

Hezbollah is in an armed conflict. It has a right to kill people who are deemed a threat. End of story.

IF THEY ARE LAWFUL TARGETS, YOU DISHONEST DIPSHIT.

Your incessant drive-bys (which invariably and deliberately ignore the governing law involved) are growing so tiresome that I feel no further need to respond. Suffice it to say, what you are doing is obviously trolling, and is a deliberate effort to derail the thread.

And this assumes that Hezbollah is involved in an "ongoing" armed conflict, which seems like something you could argue either way about.

[Simon_Jester]

Reading some responses in this thread and something struck me.

Band of Brothers. Episode 2. German soldier, born in Astoria Oregon. US Citizen, but a German soldier.

What rights does a US citizen have who joins a military of a country that is at war with the United States? MoO is stating that al-Awlaki is a military target and that changes the equation when dealing with him. Well how does US law handle US citizens that are actively members of an opposition military? Is it illegal to shoot them? Lets say a US citizen happens to become a very senior general of a country hostile to the US and more or less at war with the US. We bomb military installations all the time. Is it legal to bomb this US citizen who happens to be a general commanding a foreign army?

I can see where MoO is going. I don't necessarily agree, but the logic seems sound.

Its interesting. US constitution has nothing on the concept of insurgency really. It deals with Criminal element, and war time conditions. But what about that gray area between the two?

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship ... p_780.html

There are statutes in the US legal code to strip someone of citizenship for serving in a foreign army at war with the US. However, these are laws, which are under the province of the judiciary. It is up to the courts to decide if al-Awlaki can legally be killed, and then up to the executive branch to do it. It is not up to the executive branch to do both- to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

Now, in the case of an American citizen who is captured as part of a foreign army, we can take him home and have a trial. He can be arrested on charges of treason, or breaking statutes, or whatever. Simple.

If an American citizen is actively fighting on a battlefield and is killed by soldiers without getting the chance to announce his citizenship, that is simple- the soldiers are not at fault, because they had no way to distinguish him from any of the other enemy soldiers.

But when we make a specific, premeditated attempt to kill an American citizen using our armed forces, it is different. In that case, we need some legal judgment to provide "due process:" to ensure that his rights under the Constitution have not been cast aside, that this person is in fact an enemy and not an innocent person the president happens to want dead.

At the very least, there should be a warrant out, or something- some kind of judicial review of al-Awlaki's case in which the evidence on which Obama wants him dead is made public.

So, what is the process by which lawful targets are chosen?

For the last time, there is no legal process. Lawful targets are not entitled to due process of law. What part of this is so difficult for your walnut-sized brain to grasp?

Lawful targets are not entitled to due process. American citizens are entitled to due process.

How do we take an American citizen, and make him a lawful target? Who is responsible for that decision? Me? You? President Obama?

Or the courts?

Who decides? What ensures that the president cannot simply assert that you, MoO, are a terrorist? What ensures that he cannot, on the basis of this unproven assertion, have you killed?

You cannot answer this by saying "Al-Awlaki meets the criteria, MoO does not," because some specific human being must make the decision about whether someone is a lawful target or not. Given the way the American constitution works, if the person in question is an American citizen, that decision belongs to the courts, whose job it is to identify people who have broken the law and punish them.

I mean, Obama can say "we are charging al-Awlaki with violation of the following statutes, which would strip him of citizenship in the United States. Exhibit A: this confession video. Exhibit B: this stack of documents. Exhibit C: photographs of him hugging Osama bin Laden..."

And the courts can say "yep, he sure violated that statute. Al-Awlaki is hereby stripped of his citizenship, you may fire when ready."

And that would be totally fine.

But for Obama to simply take it upon himself to decide that al-Awlaki has gone from being a citizen with rights to being a lawful target with no rights violates every principle of the rule of law. Because he can make that decision about anybody. There is nothing stopping him from doing so.

It is obvious to anyone with a brain that a "War on Terror" cannot and will not end quickly. It can last more or less as long as the US government chooses to assert that it is still going on. Therefore, "all war crimes trials will wait until after the end of the War on Terror" is not good enough.
Organizations need oversight, oversight that doesn't just sit on its butt and procrastinate until everyone involved dies of old age.
Who is responsible for oversight in target selection in the War on Terror?

Ultimately, the President of the United States.

So, if the president makes tyrannical decisions, and starts declaring ordinary domestic political opponents as terrorists and having them killed... he is responsible for punishing himself for the war crime?

See, this is why I keep saying you are an advocate of tyranny.

And it will be a bullshit argument if you pretend that "oh well we didn't have anyone like that in WWII!" is a good enough answer. Because in WWII, the situation was totally different. The enemies identified themselves, by being part of a formal organization, and there was a definite end to the war- we could stop shooting when the Axis powers quit fighting. Whereas in this war, there is no defined duration, no defined theater of operations, no way to draw lines between the battlefield and the non-battlefield.

I have no idea what you think this has to do with anything, but if you think the enemies identified themselves in WWII then you're full of shit. Moreover, there was no definite end to the War--no one knew, in 1944, if the Allies were going to win or when. No one.

Moreover, the US is not involved in an ongoing armed conflict with all terrorists because there are no ongoing hostilities between the US and all terrorist groups. There is obviously an ongoing armed conflict against Al Qaeda. Armed hostilities between the two sides have been continuous and unabated since 2001.

Point the first:

"If you think the enemies identified themselves in WWII then you're full of shit."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_ ... an_uniform

In World War Two, the US fought countries which had declared war on it, or which it had declared war on. These countries had uniformed armed forces and well defined territories under their control. It was not difficult for us to realize that the guys wearing German uniforms in France were our enemies while random people in, say, Paraguay were not.

Today, we are in a war where we have no fucking clue who we're fighting, because the membership of groups like Al Qaeda is secret, and because there are all sorts of bullshit copycat groups calling themselves "Al Qaeda in Sandistan" or whatever. These people have little or nothing to do with the guys who launched the 9/11 attacks. Are we at war with them? If so, why? Maybe today we are fighting people in Afghanistan and tomorrow we're fighting people in Paraguay. Who knows? Who can say?

Obviously this is an important question. It cannot be shrugged off- we cannot simply decide who we're going to shoot at and then label them lawful targets after the fact. Especially not when dealing with people that our nation's highest law grants unalienable rights to.
_____________

Point the second:
"Moreover, there was no definite end to the War--no one knew, in 1944, if the Allies were going to win or when. No one."

Quite the contrary. There was a well-defined end to the war; it just hadn't been reached yet. The Allies had already declared that the war would be over when the Axis powers surrendered. That was a nice, well defined end condition. It was not certain that this could be done, that it would actually happen, but if it happened we would know. We would be able to say "oh, hey, war's over! We can stop shooting and bombing people now!"

When can we do this about the War on Terror? When does it end? When Osama bin Laden is dead? When his 9/11-vintage organization has been scattered to the winds? When there is no person on the face of the Earth who even so much as wears a T-shirt with "Al-Qaeda" on it?

This is an important question: we cannot accept that we must sacrifice our rights during wartime if the war never ends. We must have an assurance that we will get our rights back, either because the war has ended or because the emergency, the condition which justified us giving up rights, has ended.

When can we say this has happened? Or will it never end, so that the president will still have the authority to declare people to be terrorists and have them shot in the year 2020, 2050, or 2100?
_____________

Do you really expect this to be a satisfactory answer in a civilization based on the rule of law?

If you want to have a discussion about the law, cite one god damned source of law that supports your argument.

The Fifth Amendment does not apply to military targets. Cite any god damned source of law which suggests that it does. ANY. SOURCE. OF LAW.

Now, this does not apply to foreigners who have joined an army against us, but it does apply to American citizens.

EVIDENCE?

Evidence: it says on the label "no person." Now, long jurisprudence construes "no person" to mean something like "no American citizen" or "no US resident," so the Fifth Amendment did not apply to Osama bin Laden.

But it makes no allowances for exceptions of the type you desire. The president cannot point to an American citizen and say "this man is an enemy combatant, and therefore a lawful target, kill him."

If the Fifth Amendment said something like "no person... shall be deprived of life... without due process of law... unless the president wants them dead," then you would have a case.

The Authorization for Force Against Terrorists Act is itself illegal, if it deprives American citizens of life without due process of law. "Congress says you can do it" is not "due process," and the Fifth Amendment trumps acts of Congress.

Bullshit. The Fifth Amendment does not apply to military targets. Find ANY SOURCE OF LAW that suggests that it does. I have challenged you and your ilk repeatedly to do this. And you will fail, because there is no source of law which suggests that the Fifth Amendment's granting of due process applies during an ongoing armed conflict to a lawful target.

Bullshit. Find ANY SOURCE OF LAW that suggests that an American citizen's Fifth Amendment protections can be stripped away at will by the president.

You see, calling al-Awlaki a "lawful target" begs the question: is he a lawful target, can he be killed, according to the law?

The law says that as an American citizen he has a right to due process. The UNPROVEN ASSERTION that al-Awlaki is part of an enemy army DOES NOT REMOVE his right to due process. Obama saying "you are part of Al-Qaeda, and a traitor" DOES NOT GIVE HIM THE POWER TO KILL someone.

You have repeatedly ignored point blank challenges on this issue. You simply assert, over and over, that al-Awlaki is a lawful target, and that therefore he has no Fifth Amendment rights, when the Constitution says no such thing. You ignore, over and over, the fact that he was DECLARED to be a lawful target BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, not by the judicial branch which has the constitutional power to punish people.

The executive branch does not have the authority to decide who does and does not get to have constitutional rights. A state in which the ruler can take away anyone's rights by declaring that they don't have them anymore is called a "tyranny." The United States is not supposed to be a tyranny. Not even if you would like it to be one.

The Authorization for Force Against Terrorists Act is itself illegal, if it deprives American citizens of life without due process of law. "Congress says you can do it" is not "due process," and the Fifth Amendment trumps acts of Congress.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Yes, the Constitution and the federal laws take precedence over the state laws. However, this clause does not state that treaties trump laws, or that laws trump treaties; that must be decided on a case by case basis.

In short, "unconstitutional" is a much stronger argument against the legitimacy of an act of Congress or executive order than "violates a treaty we signed." For the US government to break a treaty is not forbidden under the Constitution.

However, since AFATA already violates the Constitution if it is being applied to American citizens, this is beside the point.
______________________

You're trying to argue that targeting the leader of Al'Qaeda in Yemen, who actively recruits terrorists and by his own admission sends them to act against US forces in the Middle East and Afghanistan is the same as arbitrarily targeting Chomsky because he questions US actions? I'm just trying to clarify what your point is, because there seems to be a pretty big disconnect.

No, my point is that I do not see how the president's self-declared power to mark al-Awlaki for death does not apply to Chomsky. Why is Chomsky immune to this power, when al-Awlaki is not?

In short, who is the president not permitted to call a terrorist and put on a hit list? What stops him from putting people on a hit list and having them killed if they don't deserve to be killed?

The question is not one of moral legitimacy. The question is one of rule of law. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the president of the United States has the power to mark American citizens for death on his own initiative. Even if he thinks he's got an extra-special, double-plus super-duper-strong reason for wanting that American citizen dead, that doesn't give him the lawful power to order them killed.

This is not something we should brush aside or laugh off, because the War on Terror is not going to end any time soon. We have no guarantee that this kind of "it's war, they're part of an enemy organization, they're a lawful target, KILL KILL KILL, damn the Fifth Amendment!" argument won't be used in the future against, say, domestic political opposition to the president.

Put it this way- who might President Richard Nixon have used this power against? Do you really want to find out?

The evidence against Al-Awlaki is more than just some guy saying he might be a terrorist. To be targeted like he is, to expend the kind of resources that it takes to bring someone like that down there has to be extremely damning evidence from multiple sources indicating that he is what is claimed... Otherwise he's just not worth the expenditure.

Does there have to be exceptional evidence? How do you know? Who's responsible for oversight to make sure this kind of assassination order isn't issued on the basis of flimsy evidence? Who watches the watchmen?

Moreover, this "exceptional evidence" requirement is not a legal requirement. It's a practical consideration by the president that if a man is hard to kill, you should think twice before committing the resources to kill him. But what if an American citizen the president wanted dead were easy to kill? What if it were just a matter of ordering four gunmen in a car to drive to a well known address in friendly territory, something that could be done practically over the afternoon?

Suddenly, it does not require exceptional evidence to justify the expenditure, and this objection evaporates. Which leaves us back to square one: when is it legal for the president to order the military to kill an American citizen without due process of law?

Under the Constitution, the answer is "never." Only because he has violated his oath of office does Obama ignore this fact.

Al'Qaeda operates like an army, it gets treated like one. Its goal is to kill government forces and achive supremacy, the Mafia, to continue your example uses violence as a method to obtain its goal, but that goal is not to rule as a government, and there is your difference.

It is, in practice, difficult to arrest al-Awlaki. I do not dispute this. But that does not explain why no legal due process has been applied. Why has he not at least been charged with a crime, and a warrant released for his arrest, even if serving the warrant would be very difficult?

That's the problem- not that the president wants to kill al-Awlaki, but that he asserts the right to kill al-Awlaki without reference to courts of law, without needing to publically release any evidence against him, or without anything other than his own say-so.

Because I see no legal reason why, if Obama has that power when it comes to al-Awlaki, he doesn't have that power when it comes to you and me.

What stops him from declaring you a terrorist, and ordering four guys in a Humvee to drive to your house and kill you?