DOJ Memo on Extrajudicial Killing of US Citizens

[Dr. Trainwreck]

The disconnect here seems to be some of you are viewing these as executions for crimes rather than the killing of enemy leadership in a wartime situation. The difference is as fundamental as it being "ok" to kill enemy soldiers on a base via cruise missile, but not ok to summarily execute them if they have surrendered.

Would your response be different should I have specified I was talking about American citizens?

But another disconnect is that some of you are viewing these executions as actual battles. How many wars has America officially waged in the past decades, if we exclude that War on Terror thing? How exactly is the US in a wartime situation right now, with official declarations and all that shit? America is most definitely not at war. At best, they are trying to play cops and robbers in an international level with individuals they perceive as threats. Please, people, an unfortunate moment led to America electing a moron. Another unfortunate moment led to that moron declaring war on the spectrum of human emotions. Can we now look at the situation a bit... less insanely?

So, I ask you: are you at war?

[Kamakazie Sith]

The disconnect here seems to be some of you are viewing these as executions for crimes rather than the killing of enemy leadership in a wartime situation. The difference is as fundamental as it being "ok" to kill enemy soldiers on a base via cruise missile, but not ok to summarily execute them if they have surrendered.

Would your response be different should I have specified I was talking about American citizens?

But another disconnect is that some of you are viewing these executions as actual battles. How many wars has America officially waged in the past decades, if we exclude that War on Terror thing? How exactly is the US in a wartime situation right now, with official declarations and all that shit? America is most definitely not at war. At best, they are trying to play cops and robbers in an international level with individuals they perceive as threats. Please, people, an unfortunate moment led to America electing a moron. Another unfortunate moment led to that moron declaring war on the spectrum of human emotions. Can we now look at the situation a bit... less insanely?

So, I ask you: are you at war?

I certainly agree that the tactics being used by this country in many instances are not intelligent. The drone strategy seems to be one of creating more terrorists and not stopping the problem. However, I do think current terrorists (people wanting to do harm to the US through mass murder and property destruction) are valid targets to be captured or killed and drones aren't off the table. I don't agree with strikes that result in mass non-combatant casualties.

Your cops and robbers analogy is false. Robbers want to steal money and not necessarily kill people. Most of the time they don't bring the bank down and kill everyone inside Terrorists have a political goal but are willing to meet that by using mass murder and property destruction to reach that goal. If a terrorist were your bank robber then they'd kill everyone inside and destroy the building if they had the ability.

So, you ask is the United States in a wartime situation. I ask you. Would the terrorists destroy the white house if they had the opportunity and ability? Would they sink an American aircraft carrier? Would they destroy, capture or kill US military personnel in US territory? Would they destroy US property in US territory?

[TheHammer]

The disconnect here seems to be some of you are viewing these as executions for crimes rather than the killing of enemy leadership in a wartime situation. The difference is as fundamental as it being "ok" to kill enemy soldiers on a base via cruise missile, but not ok to summarily execute them if they have surrendered.

Think of it this way: say that during the civil war, the Union had intel on the location of Robert E. Lee's headquarters and they had a canon capable of hitting those headquarters from a distance. Would it have been a violation of his civil rights for Lincoln to order the military to fire cannon shot against those head quarters? It's the same damn thing.

You are presuming that all the people claimed to be military leadership actually ARE military leadership. You don't seem to read very well. There is nothing stopping the union from turning that cannon on anyone else, in this case. There might be good reason for taking out a particular target, but so long as the policy exists that permits the state to take out ANY target without any sort of recourse whatsoever, there is nothing other than personal integrity (which, as we all know, counts so very very much ) stopping them from using it on inconvenient persons.

It would be and is one thing for the military to use drones to take out military personnel and facilities so long as they have civilian oversight. If they get it wrong and blow up a school full of children, or turn the drones to a stateside political enemy, you can drag them before a court or send them off to the Hague in chains. It is another for a political body to put people on a murder list and prevent the courts from intervening by hiding behind Executive Privilege.

You're a fucking idiot. Since when have specific military strikes been subject to any civilian oversight? Even congress, in making declarations from war, does not specify individual targets. That's up to the President in his role as CnC, along with his military advisors to make those judgements. That being said, this power IS subject to oversight. After all, if Congress feels he is abusing his authority, i.e. illegitimately targeting places or individuals, then they have the authority to impeach him and strip him of that power.

And again, this primarily falls back to simple common sense. It is their role in these terrorist organizations and the threat they pose in that role that makes them legitimate targets. The fact that some of those on this list are "American Citzens", is secondary. If they were any other nationality we don't even have this debate. The fact that they have any sort of review of their status is far better than most terrorists we kill via drone strike. Wringing your hands over the fact that it is an elected President, rather than elected appointed judge rubber stamping the decision is asinine.

[TheHammer]

The disconnect here seems to be some of you are viewing these as executions for crimes rather than the killing of enemy leadership in a wartime situation. The difference is as fundamental as it being "ok" to kill enemy soldiers on a base via cruise missile, but not ok to summarily execute them if they have surrendered.

Would your response be different should I have specified I was talking about American citizens?

But another disconnect is that some of you are viewing these executions as actual battles. How many wars has America officially waged in the past decades, if we exclude that War on Terror thing? How exactly is the US in a wartime situation right now, with official declarations and all that shit? America is most definitely not at war. At best, they are trying to play cops and robbers in an international level with individuals they perceive as threats. Please, people, an unfortunate moment led to America electing a moron. Another unfortunate moment led to that moron declaring war on the spectrum of human emotions. Can we now look at the situation a bit... less insanely?

So, I ask you: are you at war?

We are at war. With a far inferior enemy, but we are at war none the less. What consititues a "battle" in your mind? Is it a "battle" to launch a cruise missile against a military base? Is the fact that they have no ability to retaliate at that given time any reason to not launch the strike? When you are attempting to decimate an enemy force, their leadership are legitimate targets. Its not required that you give them a "fair fight" when you try to take them out.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It is their role in these terrorist organizations and the threat they pose in that role that makes them legitimate targets.

And it doesn't bother you that the burden of proof for the role and threat of these targets is rather low? I certainly agree with you that terrorists are legitimate military targets, but the problem predictably arises in actually deciding what constitutes a terrorist, and there needs to be some transparency to this process to prevent the government from abusing the power to essentially kill anybody on the planet that they want to without repercussion.

Does the U.S. government really have a tried and true record of proper restraint and competence that would suggest that these targets are all necessarily legitimate? It wasn't that long ago that American government officials were publicly decried as hating their country because they weren't wearing a fucking flag pin on their lapel.

[TheHammer]

It is their role in these terrorist organizations and the threat they pose in that role that makes them legitimate targets.

And it doesn't bother you that the burden of proof for the role and threat of these targets is rather low? I certainly agree with you that terrorists are legitimate military targets, but the problem predictably arises in actually deciding what constitutes a terrorist, and there needs to be some transparency to this process to prevent the government from abusing the power to essentially kill anybody on the planet that they want to without repercussion.

Does the U.S. government really have a tried and true record of proper restraint and competence that would suggest that these targets are all necessarily legitimate? It wasn't that long ago that American government officials were publicly decried as hating their country because they weren't wearing a fucking flag pin on their lapel.

If you don't trust the government, why would you trust any evidence they present? If they would go to the lengths of killing people for illegitimate reasons, then certainly they would not be above manufacturing evidence. When I hear people say "Well they could just declare Glenn Greenwald a terrorist and blow him up with a drone strike" I can't help but and then fear for the tin foil supply.

[Stark]

Maybe the reason a process exists for the government killing people and needing evidence and a public hearing and stuff is related to the idea that sometimes they're just flat wrong and shouldn't just be able to make a decision like that?

Please cf the CIA for the last forty years.

Authoritarianism is bad and the increase of it probably worrying, but the justifications for it are 100% laughs.

[Thanas]

It is even more hilarious considering that the vast majority of the US prisoners so far have been innocent (Guantanamo). How the heck are you supposed to trust the Government to do a better job than they did over the last few years? Because they say so?

[Korto]

You don't need the government to be composed of cartoon evil villains, secretly plotting the elimination of all who stand in their way. All you need is the existence of Group-think, a desire not to rock the boat, mistakes in interpreting evidence (possibly caused by desire for a "result"), political desire for a headline, and the desire to avoid the embarrassment of being found wrong.

The cases of Habib and Haneef show some of this.
Habib was arrested on terrorism, held at Gitmo, and confessed to terrorist acts under torture. He later contested his imprisonment with habeus corpus, was released, and the governments involved eventually admitted he was entirely innocent of any wrongdoing.
Haneef was arrested for being distantly related to a terrorist, and accused of being involved in a terrorist act. When the evidence against him was found to be false and he was ordered released, the government then took away his visa on character grounds, for meeting someone who was later a terrorist (his second cousin, once removed). This was overturned in court, as the judge noted that the judge himself would fail the character test as laid out by the government, as he'd met a number of murderers.

The point here is that these cases fell apart on external review, when the government was forced to organise and display the evidence (instead of just assume "Oh, I'm sure it's all there"). What would have happened if Habib and Haneef (or others like them), had instead been somewhere in Pakistan, where the US felt it would be too difficult to arrest them?

[CaptHawkeye]

It is even more hilarious considering that the vast majority of the US prisoners so far have been innocent (Guantanamo). How the heck are you supposed to trust the Government to do a better job than they did over the last few years? Because they say so?

Because Democrats are playing off the false-dilemma horseshit convincing Americans that it's either them or the Republicans. Yes, your choice is a right-wing party or an even more right-wing party. Trying to implement a proper left-wing party or shit, a centrist party that is actually centrist would be "splitting the vote" or some such bullshit.

[Dominarch's Hope]

@Thanas and CHE.


Yeah. See, we dont trust our govt to do anything competently unless it involves fucking us over. Because of historical precedence since Carter. So...UHC? Govt exclusive healthcare? Yeah, VA hospitals. Best hospitals ever. Like totally.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

So, you ask is the United States in a wartime situation. I ask you. Would the terrorists destroy the white house if they had the opportunity and ability? Would they sink an American aircraft carrier? Would they destroy, capture or kill US military personnel in US territory? Would they destroy US property in US territory?

Of course Timothy McVeigh would do it, I am asking if you are officially at war with him. He was arrested and stood trial, but apparently these niceties would be unnecessary if the dude was brown. Get this: without having an actual military to fight against, you can't seriously insist that you are fighting a war in any traditional sense of the word.

Hmmm... all these are also going for The Hammer. So yeah: do you have an actual military to fight against? Look, if America is just protecting its overseas strategic interests, admit it. States do it all the time, I have no problem with you just saying so. You don't need to beat your chest about how it's totally like WW2 all over again.

[Ziggy Stardust]

If you don't trust the government, why would you trust any evidence they present? If they would go to the lengths of killing people for illegitimate reasons, then certainly they would not be above manufacturing evidence.

The whole point of transparency (you know, the word I used in my last post, which you are probably too stupid to comprehend) is that the government has to provide all of the evidence that they used to make their decisions. And yes, it is possible to provide fake evidence ... but with transparency, it becomes possible to vet this evidence in a public forum. Without transparency, the government doesn't even need to provide the fake evidence, they just do what suits them. With transparency, there is a checks and balances system by which the government can be proven wrong.

When I hear people say "Well they could just declare Glenn Greenwald a terrorist and blow him up with a drone strike" I can't help but and then fear for the tin foil supply.

How fucking stupid are you? You are basically saying that demands for government transparency are insane.

Look: I am not crazy enough, nor do I think our government competent enough given the past idiocy of the CIA and related bodies in these matters, to think that they are capable of pulling off a giant international conspiracy to fake the evidence of someone or other being a terrorist. Which is why we need the transparency: even if they try to fake the evidence and all of that, it will be possible to catch them in the act. Without any form of transparency, it becomes impossible to do so. I don't understand why I need to lay this out for you.

[K. A. Pital]

It's not Glenn Greenwald, TheHammer is being a moron again.

It's the probability of killing a random (read: any) innocent person on an officials whim. Inside or outside - irrelevant. Guilt is not proven.

[TheHammer]

It's not Glenn Greenwald, TheHammer is being a moron again.

It's the probability of killing a random (read: any) innocent person on an officials whim. Inside or outside - irrelevant. Guilt is not proven.

It was suggested earlier in this thread that "Glenn Greenwald could be targeted under this policy". It's fucking laughable, just as is your throw away comment. The idea that they are targeting people "on a whim" is asinine. Do I believe that mistakes can be made? Absolutely, and people should be held accountable for those mistakes and I hope that they will be. Random innocent people are killed already as collateral damage in these strikes. If you want to argue about the wisdom of the strikes because of that collateral damage that is one thing, but the legality of going after Al Qaeda leadership regardless of nationality is not in question. Any member of a hostile foreign military organization is a legitimate military target. Military targets are not afforded a guilty/innocent verdict in a court of law. How and why military targets are selected is not subject to total public transparency. They never have been. The fact that any additional consideration is given to Al Qaeda members who happen to hold American Citizenship is a bonus that they really don't deserve.

[Gaidin]

You're not exactly processing the concerning part Hammer, what's concerning is that the memo that contains the legal interpretation that says its legal seems vague enough that it could apply to any citizen and not just citizens that are members of enemy forces.

[TheHammer]

You're not exactly processing the concerning part Hammer, what's concerning is that the memo that contains the legal interpretation that says its legal seems vague enough that it could apply to any citizen and not just citizens that are members of enemy forces.

Oh I'm well aware that is the paranoid fear some people have. However, I don't agree that this memo (which isn't a legally binding document, nor a "get out of jail free" card) in any way says that. It makes numerous references throughout that this pertains to the Al Qaeda, and affiliate group's leadership, hell the title of the memo is: “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force.” In addition, there is additional criteria that would automatically rule out the vast majority of citizens:

As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.

Further:

“A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” the white paper reads. “In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly, the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.”

That all in mind, it would seem to be quite a stretch to make that criteria fit "just anyone". Unless you suffer from delusional paranoia, and believe that the government is EVIL and will abuse this power to kill people for illegitimate reasons, there is nothing for you to reasonably fear.

Again, that's not to say mistakes won't be made. But people die from mistakes every day for a variety of issues. That's one of the hazards of life...

[Ziggy Stardust]

It was suggested earlier in this thread that "Glenn Greenwald could be targeted under this policy". It's fucking laughable, just as is your throw away comment. The idea that they are targeting people "on a whim" is asinine. Do I believe that mistakes can be made? Absolutely, and people should be held accountable for those mistakes and I hope that they will be. Random innocent people are killed already as collateral damage in these strikes. If you want to argue about the wisdom of the strikes because of that collateral damage that is one thing, but the legality of going after Al Qaeda leadership regardless of nationality is not in question. Any member of a hostile foreign military organization is a legitimate military target. Military targets are not afforded a guilty/innocent verdict in a court of law. How and why military targets are selected is not subject to total public transparency. They never have been. The fact that any additional consideration is given to Al Qaeda members who happen to hold American Citizenship is a bonus that they really don't deserve.

How thick can you possibly be?

No matter how many times it has been spelled out in this thread, you really cannot wrap your pathetic little mind around the point, can you?

I'll make it simple. How do we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is a member of a hostile foreign military organization? What is sufficient evidence of this cooperation?

Remember Iraq? It only happened a couple of years ago, and I know your brain moves at a glacial pace, so let me remind you that the invasion of Iraq after 9/11 was based off of faulty intelligence vis-a-vis the existence of WMDs. I am not going to get into the argument over whether malice or incompetence was the critical factor in the Iraq debacle, but it is inarguable that the intelligence was bad, and thus the reasons for invading the country.

Do you get it yet? Probably not, because your posts in this thread (and others) have shown you to be colossally incapable of processing even the simplest of facts. But I might as well give it another shot.

If the American intelligence and military apparatus has a proven history of misusing, misinterpreting, or downright fabricating evidence (as in Iraq post-9/11), how do we know that the evidence being used to kill these supposed military targets is sound?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Of course Timothy McVeigh would do it, I am asking if you are officially at war with him. He was arrested and stood trial, but apparently these niceties would be unnecessary if the dude was brown. Get this: without having an actual military to fight against, you can't seriously insist that you are fighting a war in any traditional sense of the word.

While racism may play a factor you are off the mark here and I'd say it is more religious in nature than skin color.

Timothy McVeigh's capture was feasible because he was within the United States. Furthermore, military action has been authorized against members of Al Qaeda because they operate within foreign countries. It has not been authorized against terrorists operating inside the United States.

By the way. Had Timothy McVeigh been in a position where it was likely that he was going to escape then a law enforcement officer could shoot him in the back even if he were unarmed.

Hmmm... all these are also going for The Hammer. So yeah: do you have an actual military to fight against? Look, if America is just protecting its overseas strategic interests, admit it. States do it all the time, I have no problem with you just saying so. You don't need to beat your chest about how it's totally like WW2 all over again.

That's not how war is defined. War can be waged by any group on another group for a variety of purposes. Both participants do not need to have a organizations that meet your definition of a military.

And who here is saying that this is like WW2 all over again?

[Kamakazie Sith]

If the American intelligence and military apparatus has a proven history of misusing, misinterpreting, or downright fabricating evidence (as in Iraq post-9/11), how do we know that the evidence being used to kill these supposed military targets is sound?

The only way would be to consider the source. Are the same people pushing this evidence the same that pushed the WMD evidence?

[TheHammer]

How thick can you possibly be?

LOL, GO FUCK YOURSELF.

No matter how many times it has been spelled out in this thread, you really cannot wrap your pathetic little mind around the point, can you?

I'll make it simple. How do we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is a member of a hostile foreign military organization? What is sufficient evidence of this cooperation?

Oh I understand perfectly what you are saying. I simply don't agree with you. It seems to me that you feel that this is akin to a courtroom, where you need to know "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that someone is a member of a foreign military organization before taking action. I don't feel that the burden of proof need to be that stringent. Because this is not a court of law situation. It's a wartime situation, whether you want to call it that or not, and the rules of war don't have the same burden of proof that a court of law does.

Remember Iraq? It only happened a couple of years ago, and I know your brain moves at a glacial pace, so let me remind you that the invasion of Iraq after 9/11 was based off of faulty intelligence vis-a-vis the existence of WMDs. I am not going to get into the argument over whether malice or incompetence was the critical factor in the Iraq debacle, but it is inarguable that the intelligence was bad, and thus the reasons for invading the country.

This is completely irrelevent, but since you brought it up. The problem was the intelligence, so you fix the way you gather and analyze that intelligence. You don't throw your fucking hands in the air and decide its worthless to even try.

Do you get it yet? Probably not, because your posts in this thread (and others) have shown you to be colossally incapable of processing even the simplest of facts. But I might as well give it another shot.

If the American intelligence and military apparatus has a proven history of misusing, misinterpreting, or downright fabricating evidence (as in Iraq post-9/11), how do we know that the evidence being used to kill these supposed military targets is sound?

Which falls back to my previous point that if you don't trust the government, why would you trust any evidence they present to you? "The government" is not a faceless entity set in stone. Methods change and improve overtime, as does leadership and personnel. just because there were mistakes made with regard to Gitmo detainees, and Iraq doesn't mean that there will be similar failures here. In fact, I'd argue that those previous failures are likely to prevent similar failures in the future.

As for me, I trust the people handling the intelligence and deciding who and what to target because that's their fucking job. Same way I trust my doctor to know his job when prescribing medications that could potentially kill me. The same way I trust the restaurants I eat at to properly handle the food they prepare so that I don't get a foodborne illness. That doesn't mean that if I see something wrong that I'll just cover my eyes in any of these events. It simply means that I don't presume incompetance or malfeasance as you apparently do. Come back to me when they actually target and kill someone they shouldn't have using this policy. Until then, I'm not going to worry about it.

[Grumman]

“A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” the white paper reads. “In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly, the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.”

That all in mind, it would seem to be quite a stretch to make that criteria fit "just anyone".

What a coincidence, the government did exactly that! Or have you not read their definition of "imminent threat", that does not require imminence nor any evidence of a threat?

[Alyeska]

It is even more hilarious considering that the vast majority of the US prisoners so far have been innocent (Guantanamo). How the heck are you supposed to trust the Government to do a better job than they did over the last few years? Because they say so?

Because Democrats are playing off the false-dilemma horseshit convincing Americans that it's either them or the Republicans. Yes, your choice is a right-wing party or an even more right-wing party. Trying to implement a proper left-wing party or shit, a centrist party that is actually centrist would be "splitting the vote" or some such bullshit.

In a two party system, it IS only two choices. It is literally Democrat or Republican. That isn't a false dilemma. Its Real Politik. To build a new party is not easy. Last time that happened was 150 years ago. To change a party is easier. But it STILL takes time.

For better or worse, the system is what it is. But refusing to acknowledge that and instead throw a tantrum about the choices is the height of ignorance.

[Zaune]

Since you mention it, is a split left-wing vote necessarily all that bad in the long term? Okay, so it means the Republicans get a term in office. That's what, four to seven years depending on the exact nature of the position? In that time, the Democrats can -and hopefully will- take notice of the fact that a significant chunk of their potential voter base went with some other guy because they wanted X, Y and Z; maybe they might want to look into making a few token gestures towards X, Y and Z in the manifesto the next time around? And there's a limit to how much harm the Republican candidate can do in that time, at least if they don't have an absolute majority and ironclad party discipline. (I don't think US politicians can be thrown off the party ticket for not voting how they're told to vote, for example, so it's not like the saner Republicans have their hands tied.)

[Stark]

Real Politik

LOL

Anyway, even in a two party system a theoretical population of 'free voters' could vote in two DIFFERENT parties each time. Cemented voting blocks, corporate-funded advertising and use of wedge issues and radicalism is arguably a much bigger problem than this 'Real Politik'.

If all the Democrats who believed in things like not torturing people and maybe not killing them without trial and such voted for the Republicans or someone else, you'd see change. Shrugging and saying 'oh well, no real choice, I'll just vote for my cemented feudal lord like always' makes you the problem.