DOJ Memo on Extrajudicial Killing of US Citizens

[Dr. Trainwreck]

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.

So they don't discriminate because he is brown. They discriminate because he is a Muslim. And this apparently defeats my point, which is that due process is considered unnecessary when we're talking about people we don't like.

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.

Yes. I don't have a problem with America blowing some terrorist sky high. What matters is who is defined as a terrorist, and on what basis. Because according to the memo, a terrorist is "whoever the CIA fucking feels like it".

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.

Merriam-Webster gives two definitions:

1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
b : the art or science of warfare
c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>
c : variance, odds

Going by the first definition, you most certainly are not at war. Going by the second definition, anything that vexes one can be defined as a war. So if you are going by the second definition, America says that they have a right to bomb whoever they please because of a problem they decided to term as war. Which I guess is exactly what Bush Jr did, and Obama continues to do.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

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.

But Zaune... they cannot afford to let the Republicans in for just one term. THEY ARE AT WAR.

Once you corner voters on why they actually vote the way they do, they all give you the same arguments. "Republicans axe my job and start bullshit wars, but at least they are not Democrats." "Democrats fuck me ten ways from Sunday, do absolutely nothing on the issues I voted them for and are just as authoritarian as the opposition, but at least they are not Republicans." At least bees make honey, so they are useful as hive drones.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So they don't discriminate because he is brown. They discriminate because he is a Muslim. And this apparently defeats my point, which is that due process is considered unnecessary when we're talking about people we don't like.

No, you misunderstand. I was agreeing with you that discrimination may play a factor in this. To what extent I am not sure. I'm confused how you thought this statement was a response to your point.

Yes. I don't have a problem with America blowing some terrorist sky high. What matters is who is defined as a terrorist, and on what basis. Because according to the memo, a terrorist is "whoever the CIA fucking feels like it".

No. It doesn't say that. It does set requirements. Whether those are followed and how they're reviewed isn't clearly defined. This does concern me because it sounds like the usual checks and balances could be bypassed.

Going by the first definition, you most certainly are not at war. Going by the second definition, anything that vexes one can be defined as a war. So if you are going by the second definition, America says that they have a right to bomb whoever they please because of a problem they decided to term as war. Which I guess is exactly what Bush Jr did, and Obama continues to do.

I'm sorry you do not like the second definition and I disagree that it means "anything that vexes you". Has the war on terror been used as an excuse? Yes, Iraq was the result.

[Vendetta]

No. It doesn't say that. It does set requirements. Whether those are followed and how they're reviewed isn't clearly defined. This does concern me because it sounds like the usual checks and balances could be bypassed.

But the requirements are secret, and any evidence that they might be met is secret.

Which is actually the same as "whoever the CIA feels like".

[Kamakazie Sith]

No. It doesn't say that. It does set requirements. Whether those are followed and how they're reviewed isn't clearly defined. This does concern me because it sounds like the usual checks and balances could be bypassed.

But the requirements are secret, and any evidence that they might be met is secret.

Which is actually the same as "whoever the CIA feels like".

If they follow those requirements then how it is the same? Sure, the secrecy means it can be that way. It doesn't mean it is. By the way, the requirements aren't secret. They were in the OP. "Senior operational leader of Al Qaeda" or "an associated force of Al Qaeda" and "capture not feasible".

[Vendetta]

If they follow those requirements then how it is the same? Sure, the secrecy means it can be that way. It doesn't mean it is.

It means that if it wasn't, there would be absolutely no way that anyone would know. Now, maybe you trust the CIA to accurately select their targets, but as we've seen repeatedly in cases of extraordinary rendition, torture, and detention is guantanamo and other prisons around the world they are very much not doing that.

In short, there is absolutely no reason to trust that these requirements are being followed.

I find it doubly odd that a police officer, someone who should be used to the concept of standards of evidence and the importance of trial and due process as a core part of his job is willing to accept the concept of secret trials with secret evidence against vague criteria. (a 16 year old boy is now a "senior operational leader of Al Qaeda"?)

[Thanas]

Hey, we even got cases where the CIA openly admitted that they made mistakes and the guy was innocent, but tortured him anyway and kept him under lock. Because the CIA does not make mistakes.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If they follow those requirements then how it is the same? Sure, the secrecy means it can be that way. It doesn't mean it is.

It means that if it wasn't, there would be absolutely no way that anyone would know. Now, maybe you trust the CIA to accurately select their targets, but as we've seen repeatedly in cases of extraordinary rendition, torture, and detention is guantanamo and other prisons around the world they are very much not doing that.

Yeah, and that's why I have a problem with the secrecy.

In short, there is absolutely no reason to trust that these requirements are being followed.

That is understandable.

I find it doubly odd that a police officer, someone who should be used to the concept of standards of evidence and the importance of trial and due process as a core part of his job is willing to accept the concept of secret trials with secret evidence against vague criteria. (a 16 year old boy is now a "senior operational leader of Al Qaeda"?)

You're confused. I am not accepting of the secret trials with secret evidence.

As for the 16 year old it also says "associated forces" which I take to mean as any member of Al Qaeda or their allies. However, Ibrahim al-Banna was the reported target in that strike. Officials claim that they weren't aware that Anwar's son was present.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Hey, we even got cases where the CIA openly admitted that they made mistakes and the guy was innocent, but tortured him anyway and kept him under lock. Because the CIA does not make mistakes.

Who is saying that the CIA does not make mistakes, lies, or doesn't engage in malicious operations? Name that person in this thread. If nobody here has then you are trolling.

[Metahive]

Hey, we even got cases where the CIA openly admitted that they made mistakes and the guy was innocent, but tortured him anyway and kept him under lock. Because the CIA does not make mistakes.

Who is saying that the CIA does not make mistakes, lies, or doesn't engage in malicious operations? Name that person in this thread. If nobody here has then you are trolling.

Everyone who thinks they should have the right to play judge, jury and executioner at will. Otherwise it means they're OK with innocent people getting whacked.

Choose your poison.

[Vendetta]

You're confused. I am not accepting of the secret trials with secret evidence.

As for the 16 year old it also says "associated forces" which I take to mean as any member of Al Qaeda or their allies. However, Ibrahim al-Banna was the reported target in that strike. Officials claim that they weren't aware that Anwar's son was present.

So the criteria (which it's OK if the administration follow, you say) aren't just vague but also broad enough to be essentially meaningless. Who are the "associated forces" of Al Qaeda? It certainly appears from the CIA's pattern of actions that it's "anyone that anyone tells us is a terrorist".

Also, Anwar's son was killed in a signature strike on his funeral, who did they think would be present if not family, (not to mention that signature strikes are basically "kill a bunch of folks because someone they know/are related to is a terrorist, so they might also be terrorists")

[Thanas]

Hey, we even got cases where the CIA openly admitted that they made mistakes and the guy was innocent, but tortured him anyway and kept him under lock. Because the CIA does not make mistakes.

Who is saying that the CIA does not make mistakes, lies, or doesn't engage in malicious operations? Name that person in this thread. If nobody here has then you are trolling.

Everybody in this thread who thinks secret requirements are a form of protection? I mean, at least I thought they would be implying that the rules are being followed. If not, then they are just cynical assholes.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So the criteria (which it's OK if the administration follow, you say) aren't just vague but also broad enough to be essentially meaningless. Who are the "associated forces" of Al Qaeda? It certainly appears from the CIA's pattern of actions that it's "anyone that anyone tells us is a terrorist".

Yeah, it is vague. Obama has told the DOJ to release additional documents to the media so hopefully that we will be more specific.

Also, Anwar's son was killed in a signature strike on his funeral, who did they think would be present if not family, (not to mention that signature strikes are basically "kill a bunch of folks because someone they know/are related to is a terrorist, so they might also be terrorists")

Where did you get that information?

In a separate statement Monday, the Awlaki family said that Abdulrahman “along with some of his tribe’s youth have gone barbecuing under the moonlight. A drone missile hit their congregation killing Abdulrahman and several other teenagers.”

source

[Kamakazie Sith]

Hey, we even got cases where the CIA openly admitted that they made mistakes and the guy was innocent, but tortured him anyway and kept him under lock. Because the CIA does not make mistakes.

Who is saying that the CIA does not make mistakes, lies, or doesn't engage in malicious operations? Name that person in this thread. If nobody here has then you are trolling.

Everybody in this thread who thinks secret requirements are a form of protection? I mean, at least I thought they would be implying that the rules are being followed. If not, then they are just cynical assholes.

Isn't the rationale for the secrecy to protect their sources within Al Qaeda? That still doesn't mean that a civilian review can't be done but they would have to be sworn to secrecy until that source was removed from danger. If the information in the civilian review is secret aren't we back where we started? Ultimately, it comes down to transparency.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

No, you misunderstand. I was agreeing with you that discrimination may play a factor in this. To what extent I am not sure. I'm confused how you thought this statement was a response to your point.

Ah. Sorry.

No. It doesn't say that. It does set requirements. Whether those are followed and how they're reviewed isn't clearly defined. This does concern me because it sounds like the usual checks and balances could be bypassed.

Which might as well mean that nobody follows these requirements. This is about transparency.

I'm sorry you do not like the second definition and I disagree that it means "anything that vexes you". Has the war on terror been used as an excuse? Yes, Iraq was the result.

The war on terror is still being used as an excuse. We are discussing such an issue right now.

[Thanas]

Isn't the rationale for the secrecy to protect their sources within Al Qaeda? That still doesn't mean that a civilian review can't be done but they would have to be sworn to secrecy until that source was removed from danger. If the information in the civilian review is secret aren't we back where we started? Ultimately, it comes down to transparency.

And the argument is that the secrecy means the CIA can go on doing what they have always done and that is to sweep mistakes under the rug, or not following their own protocols. Why do you trust the CIA to suddenly do something they have not been doing since over half a century?

[Gaidin]

Civilian review has been done in secret for decades by closed courts and the select committees to protect sources and information. That's nothing exactly special. It's going to be done like that for a good long while yet by every country on this planet with some sort of interest in checks and balances. The thing that makes this entire situation particularly interesting is that the document they're doing a huge song and dance to keep hidden is nothing more than a legal interpretation of a public law.

[ryacko]

I thought only the Supreme Court has the final word in legal interpretations. Wonderful Catch-22, can't appeal a decision you aren't a party to, but everyone is affected by it.

nothing more than a legal interpretation of a public law.

This is like saying evidence for war crimes are nothing more then accounting documents, general decisions, and inventory sheets.

[Gaidin]

I thought only the Supreme Court has the final word in legal interpretations. Wonderful Catch-22, can't appeal a decision you aren't a party to, but everyone is affected by it.

Uhh, sure. If an appeal of a court decision makes it up that far. But the president still takes advice on the legal interpretations of laws from the DoJ. He doesn't go to the Judicial for everything.

nothing more than a legal interpretation of a public law.

This is like saying evidence for war crimes are nothing more then accounting documents, general decisions, and inventory sheets.

So? That's what the document is, no more no less. The DoJ interpreted the law in such a fashion, and the Executive has been doing a song and dance to keep that interpretation under wraps. If a case involving this law and the Executives execution of said law makes it to a court things will be interesting, but that's another deal altogether. All the document is is the DoJ's interpretation of a public law. As far as keeping that interpretation under wraps its more FOIA than anything.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Isn't the rationale for the secrecy to protect their sources within Al Qaeda? That still doesn't mean that a civilian review can't be done but they would have to be sworn to secrecy until that source was removed from danger. If the information in the civilian review is secret aren't we back where we started? Ultimately, it comes down to transparency.

And the argument is that the secrecy means the CIA can go on doing what they have always done and that is to sweep mistakes under the rug, or not following their own protocols. Why do you trust the CIA to suddenly do something they have not been doing since over half a century?

So, do you feel that the CIA has fucked up so much that they shouldn't be allowed to keep their sources secret? Like I said before a civilian review isn't but the information from that review would have to be kept secret. I do not think the CIA should be given the powers judge, jury, executioner. However, they should be able to keep their sources secret if for nothing else for the safety of those sources.

I never said I trusted the CIA. In fact, all I've said is that the memo indicates that they have requirements but I do not know if those requirements are being followed. Hopefully that clears up your confusion.

[TheHammer]

“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?

No they didn't. What the memo essentially says is that anyone acting in a leadership role for Al Qaeda, or an affiliate group, is an imminent threat by holding that role, and that imminence of a specific planned attack is not required in order to target such individuals.

Previously in this thread it was mentioned that Samir Khan and Anwar Awlaki as being killed via drone strike. The point left out is that Khan wasn't actually targeted, rather he just happened to be riding along with Awlaki that day. While he died just the same, it is worth noting that even though he was a member of Al Qaeda, specifically working as part of their propoganda arm, he wasn't on the "kill" list.

[Ziggy Stardust]

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.

I never said it needed the same burden of proof as a court of law. But that's not the same thing as saying that no proof is needed at all. So again, you dodge the point. Considering especially that this is not a conventional war against a uniformed opponent, why do you think no burden of proof is needed?

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.

Nice strawman, you stupid fuck. I never advocated "throwing my hands in the air and deciding its worthless." That you have the gall to put those words in my mouth despite me very plainly and carefully laying out my position in at least 3 posts in this thread is evidence of the fact that you are either A) criminally stupid and I shouldn't bother listening to a word you say, B) incredibly dishonest, and all of these goalpost-moves and strawmen have been intentional, because you are a worthless little weasel, or C) some combination of the above.

Since you have refused to address my argument several times, I take it as a concession.

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?

An argument I already addressed.

"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.

And so your entire argument boils down to, "Ahh, they probably have it figured out. No reason to ask."

As for me, I trust the people handling the intelligence and deciding who and what to target because that's their fucking job.

And the fact that they have repeatedly failed at their job, or intentionally violated both US and international laws through their rendition program, doesn't bother you?

Again: when somebody has a history of not doing a good job, their employers have every right to than take measures to make sure they are doing their job right. That's the point of transparency, which continually eludes your infantile mental grasp.

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.

And guess what, dipshit? Neither your doctor nor your restaurant operate under complete secrecy! Which is my entire fucking point, that you have proven yourself repeatedly too stupid to be able to comprehend! The beauty of your doctor and restaurants is that there are very clear guidelines that they must follow, broadly transparent processes by which they operate, and an efficient system of review/punishment/etc. that both discourage malfeasance and help protect the customer, you.

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.

Oh, look! TheHammer shits out another strawman! Where have I assumed incompetence or malfeasance? All I have noted is that if the processes involved were more transparent, or if there was a more thorough system of review (as there is in other fields of the military and government), then we can AVOID the possibility of incompetence or malfeasance. That this distinction evades you is your problem, as I have communicated it quite clearly in multiple posts.

All you have done is ignore what I have said while banging your head on a wall and shouting. You realize if we applied the same logic you are using here to the example of the restaurants above, then we wouldn't have any health codes? After all, we should trust professionals to do their jobs right, and there is absolutely no precedent in military/legal/political history of these processes nope no sir, and you must be a wacko if you think a restaurant is going to cut corners!

But I don't expect you are remotely intelligent enough to notice how untenable and inconsistent your logic is.

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.

First of all, I am glad you finally admit that you think that preventing the deaths of innocent people is NOT a worthwhile goal. People fuck 'em, they're probably just brown people anyway, *I'm a smarmy asshole*?

Second of all, according to this logic, we shouldn't make any effort to review doctor's practices to make sure they are legal and ethical until they steal a patient's liver.

Or the FDA shouldn't even exist until a salmonella outbreak kills 200 people.

Also, knowing you, if the government targets and kills someone they shouldn't you will just move the goalposts and misrepresent my argument again. I mean, so far that is all you have done in this thread, why should I expect you to change your habits?

[Ziggy Stardust]

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

Considering that the government's policies vis-a-vis intelligence gathering and the War on Terror have changed very little, if at all, between administrations, it would be premature to completely dismiss the lessons of Iraq just because there are different people at the top.

As I tried to explain to TheHammer, and he obstinately refused to understand, is that I am not claiming the government IS using intelligence improperly/illegally/what-have-you, but that it bothers me that this memo seems to imply that there is little to no method by which it can be discerned whether they are or not.

[Kamakazie Sith]

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

Considering that the government's policies vis-a-vis intelligence gathering and the War on Terror have changed very little, if at all, between administrations, it would be premature to completely dismiss the lessons of Iraq just because there are different people at the top.

As I tried to explain to TheHammer, and he obstinately refused to understand, is that I am not claiming the government IS using intelligence improperly/illegally/what-have-you, but that it bothers me that this memo seems to imply that there is little to no method by which it can be discerned whether they are or not.

I agree. Like I said before I do not like the secrecy. I have no problem with any member of al qaeda being killed but when someone is specifically targeted, regardless of their citizenship status, then the evidence should be reviewed by an independent group that has finally say.

[Thanas]

So, do you feel that the CIA has fucked up so much that they shouldn't be allowed to keep their sources secret? Like I said before a civilian review isn't but the information from that review would have to be kept secret. I do not think the CIA should be given the powers judge, jury, executioner. However, they should be able to keep their sources secret if for nothing else for the safety of those sources. I never said I trusted the CIA. In fact, all I've said is that the memo indicates that they have requirements but I do not know if those requirements are being followed. Hopefully that clears up your confusion.

The USA already has secret courts, and a secret panel of judges to review secret evidence. The fact that the CIA will not even trust a judge when there is no way the information can get out, seeing as the judge will make a judgement completely based on CIA findings, in a CIA environment, just goes to show that these people have no interest in an independent review.

Your hand-wringing about the CIA being unable to protect their sources if they let the judiciary decide is a complete fallacy as there can be a judiciary review without the sources being made public.