DOJ Memo on Extrajudicial Killing of US Citizens

[Kamakazie Sith]

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.

The memo says nothing about only CIA officials. It just says an "informed, high level" official. So, that could be a secret panel of judges. You do not know. It isn't specific.

So, just so we're clear if the secret panel of judges is used then you are satisfied?

[Thanas]

Yes, but it is not. High-level official means Obamas counterterrorism czar.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yes, but it is not. High-level official means Obamas counterterrorism czar.

Okay. How do you know this?

[Thanas]

Because the memo speaks of "conduct of the executive" when speaking about possible consequences of the "high level official" doing things wrong. That automatically precludes a member of the judiciary.

Even so, I would like you to state where you derive your blind faith in the CIA asking for judicial approval when they have never done so before from. How do you know it is a judge, and how do you know a judge is suddenly a "high level official....of the executive"?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Because the memo speaks of "conduct of the executive" when speaking about possible consequences of the "high level official" doing things wrong. That automatically precludes a member of the judiciary.

Ah I see.

Even so, I would like you to state where you derive your blind faith in the CIA asking for judicial approval when they have never done so before from. How do you know it is a judge, and how do you know a judge is suddenly a "high level official....of the executive"?

I don't have blind faith in the CIA. You fabricated that nonsense and now you are clearly not reading my posts. I specifically said that high level official could mean a judge. I did not say that it IS a judge. Though I missed the part about the official being part of the executive so I withdraw that possibility.

[Thanas]

So you would agree that this Extrajudicial killing of US citizens based on secret evidence which no judge or jury has ever seen should not go on in this present form?

[Kamakazie Sith]

So you would agree that this Extrajudicial killing of US citizens based on secret evidence which no judge or jury has ever seen should not go on in this present form?

Yes. This war is unique in the sense that the enemy does not wear uniforms. I would extend this to foreigners as well.

I'm not sure if you answered my question. If secret evidence was being reviewed by a secret judge you would be OK with these strikes?

[Thanas]

So you would agree that this Extrajudicial killing of US citizens based on secret evidence which no judge or jury has ever seen should not go on in this present form?

Yes. This war is unique in the sense that the enemy does not wear uniforms. I would extend this to foreigners as well.

Sorry, that answer is a bit vague or maybe I just do not understand it.

In favor of the current system or not?

I'm not sure if you answered my question. If secret evidence was being reviewed by a secret judge you would be OK with these strikes?

If it would go to a secret court like espionage cases, or before a panel of judges, where both pro and contra arguments are presented by persons appointed to prosecute or defend, then I would not have an objection to it. I would not be OK with them on principle but the precedent is there so I could hardly complain about such a system. Of course, such a system is not currently in place.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Sorry, that answer is a bit vague or maybe I just do not understand it.

In favor of the current system or not?

Yes is a vague answer? You did ask a yes/no question, right? You asked if I would agree that this extrajudicial killing of US citizens based on secret evidence which no judge or jury has ever seen should not go on in this present form. I answered yes.

I added that I would extend it to foreigners as well. We shouldn't be killing people period unless we have evidence that they are a member of Al Qaeda.

[TheHammer]

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?

You specifically stated that we needed to know "beyond a shadow of a doubt", a level of proof that already exceeds the "reasonable" doubt that would be needed in a court of law. I don't know what point you feel I've dodged, its clear you are simply trying to deflect from the fact that you made a moronic statement.

No where did I say "no proof was needed". I simply said that it didn't need to be of the same level as you'd see evidence presented in a court of law. I'd fucking hope that they did indeed have evidence for putting someone on these lists and that they had a vetting process for that evidence. In fact, I'm quite certain that they do. This isn't the same situation as when they were rounding up individuals to dump at Gitmo.

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.

Accurately depicting your position is not a strawman. You made it clear by your statement that you didn't trust the intelligence, that either it was "malice" or "incompetance" thus implying that the same situation would be likely to occur here. If that's NOT what you were implying it would have been irrelevent to even bring it up. In fact, I said as much then.

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

You're throwing random fallacy accusations that really don't fit and trying to escape as quickly as you can from the thorough ass kicking you are recieving. Declaring victory and running away isn't going to cut it you worthless piece of shit.

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.

It wasn't an argument, it was a question. If you don't trust the intel gathering, and don't trust the evidence, "showing it to you" to justify the governments action is purely for show, and thus fucking pointless.

"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."

Anytime someone uses the phrase "boils down to" a true strawman usually is about to follow, as you've just shown here. Anyone with a brain clearly knows that's not what I'm saying.

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.

And measures have been taken. As I previously noted, you've got a different administration, different personnel, different methods for gathering and interpreting intel. Further, the nature of this work means its not going to be completely transparent. The fact that you can see the memo IS a level of transparency, even if it's not the level you want it to be.

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.

They don't operate under secrecy because that's not the nature of their business. Conducting intelligence and war time operations DOES heavily involve secrecy because you want to deny your enemies any advantage.

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.

Well lets see,

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.

You attribute to one of those two factors when you brought up Iraq. And if you aren't trying to draw a parallel between the two, then it was an irrelevent point to bring up. Stop whining when I keep throwing your own words back in your face.

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.

Its not at all inconsistent. You've made weak arguments and I've smacked them down quite consistently.

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?

Yes lets bring race in to this, something I certainly have not done, so you can sit up on your pedestal and continue to launch bullshit. Weak.

Further, You seem to imply that I think that there should "no guidelines" a position I certainly have not taken. Weak.

If you took out the insults and weak ass strawmen from your postings I suspect you'd have maybe a paragraph at best of actual thought. No one is moving the goalposts, you simply don't have a leg to stand on.

[Ziggy Stardust]

You specifically stated that we needed to know "beyond a shadow of a doubt", a level of proof that already exceeds the "reasonable" doubt that would be needed in a court of law. I don't know what point you feel I've dodged, its clear you are simply trying to deflect from the fact that you made a moronic statement.

So you ignore the breadth of my point to nitpick the semantics. Classy.

No where did I say "no proof was needed". I simply said that it didn't need to be of the same level as you'd see evidence presented in a court of law.

And I asked you why.

I'd fucking hope that they did indeed have evidence for putting someone on these lists and that they had a vetting process for that evidence. In fact, I'm quite certain that they do. This isn't the same situation as when they were rounding up individuals to dump at Gitmo.

Prove it. I am getting tired of your idiocy. Why are you certain that they do? Why is this a different situation?

Accurately depicting your position is not a strawman.

Then find the post where I said, "throwing my hands in the air and deciding its worthless." That is how you characterized my stance.

You made it clear by your statement that you didn't trust the intelligence, that either it was "malice" or "incompetance" thus implying that the same situation would be likely to occur here. If that's NOT what you were implying it would have been irrelevent to even bring it up. In fact, I said as much then.

So you really are too thick to understand my argument despite me laying it out for you in very plain language in multiple posts? Again, you paint this as an issue of "trust," when it really is a matter of due process.

You're throwing random fallacy accusations that really don't fit and trying to escape as quickly as you can from the thorough ass kicking you are recieving. Declaring victory and running away isn't going to cut it you worthless piece of shit.

It wasn't an argument, it was a question. If you don't trust the intel gathering, and don't trust the evidence, "showing it to you" to justify the governments action is purely for show, and thus fucking pointless.

Do you really not understand what the word "evidence" means? Or what "due process" means?

Anytime someone uses the phrase "boils down to" a true strawman usually is about to follow, as you've just shown here. Anyone with a brain clearly knows that's not what I'm saying.

Again, you prove yourself to be a dishonest little fuck. This is word for word what you said asshole:

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.

You are literally dismissing any possibility of oversight or due process with the vague claim that they've fixed the source of any previous errors they've made, without providing any evidence that this could possibly be the case.

That's how a human being with a functioning brain interprets those words.

And measures have been taken.

What measures?

As I previously noted, you've got a different administration, different personnel, different methods for gathering and interpreting intel.

The current administration's methods have been identical to the previous administration's in essentially every aspect of the way the war is being conducted, from drone strikes to CIA "black sites." If it has been the same in every other way, what evidence do we have that they have fixed any procedural or institutional errors that have contributed to previous debacles?

They don't operate under secrecy because that's not the nature of their business. Conducting intelligence and war time operations DOES heavily involve secrecy because you want to deny your enemies any advantage.

Why does this necessarily preclude the need for due process, or throw out the need for sufficient evidence to be gathered to even classify someone as an enemy combatant? You know it is possible to have judicial oversight while still keeping something secret (it happens all the time in domestic law enforcement)?

You attribute to one of those two factors when you brought up Iraq.

Okay, so now you have proven you are completely fucking illiterate. You can't even manage to keep your own god-damned posts in their proper context. Let's take a step back and look at this again, shall we, moron?

YOU said: "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."

This is in direct response to me saying: "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?"

Now, it is pretty fucking obvious what I am talking about here. But since you can't understand it, we are talking about the extrajudicial killings of US (and other) citizens. I am not presuming incompetence or malfeasance in the issue; I am merely pointing out that the American intelligence apparatus has been guilty of them in the past, and thus the need for some sort of oversight to prevent the possibility of those occurring.

The only "incompetence or malfeasance" I have addressed was very specifically referring to the existence of WMDs in Iraq. It is inarguable that the intelligence there was wrong; it has been proven. I never said that the current intelligence operation exhibited either, and in fact specifically mentioned that I did not necessarily think this was the case.

So you are either, A) a moron, B) deliberately taking my quotes out of their proper context in an attempt to obfuscate my argument, or C) saying that the intelligence leading to the invasion of Iraq was correct. If C), I expect you to provide some evidence.

Its not at all inconsistent. You've made weak arguments and I've smacked them down quite consistently.

Where? I am having a hard time finding a place you've actually addressed my arguments.

Further, You seem to imply that I think that there should "no guidelines" a position I certainly have not taken. Weak.

Your first post:

We do not give court trials to military targets. Senior leadership of an organization engaged in armed hostilities towards the US are legitimate military targets. The fact that there is any additional consideration at all given to these men because they are "American Citizens" should be considered a bonus.

To which multiple people (Ahriman238, Alyrium Denryle [twice], White Haven, Zaune, Dr. Trainwreck, Stark, Gaidin, Grumman, and myself) have responded and told you that the problem is that we don't have clear guidelines for how to classify someone as a legitimate military target in this war. You have not addressed that point at all, and in fact have refused to even acknowledge multiple posts posing the question to you. And the few times you did acknowledge them you just dismissed those fears as being "paranoid."

Tell me, then, you smug little shit. What position are you taking? When you dismiss any talk of oversight, review, transparency, or any other process by which the evidence can be properly vetted as being the results of paranoid delusion, you are heavily implying that you don't view any of those guidelines as being proper means.

Yes lets bring race in to this, something I certainly have not done, so you can sit up on your pedestal and continue to launch bullshit. Weak.

This response sums up your debate style pretty nicely. You've done it consistently throughout this thread. You clumsily try to avoid the obvious point of what I was saying, hoping that your little repartee will distract me.

[TheHammer]

A bunch of petulant bullshit.

Your argument style is basically to restate your opinion (read NOT an argument supported by facts), then scream and fall back to ad hominem attacks when I don't agree with you.

As for the actual questions you posed:

Why does this necessarily preclude the need for due process, or throw out the need for sufficient evidence to be gathered to even classify someone as an enemy combatant? You know it is possible to have judicial oversight while still keeping something secret (it happens all the time in domestic law enforcement)?

This is not a law enforcement situation, it is a military one. Please cite any time in history that military targets have been subject to "judicial review".

The only "incompetence or malfeasance" I have addressed was very specifically referring to the existence of WMDs in Iraq. It is inarguable that the intelligence there was wrong; it has been proven. I never said that the current intelligence operation exhibited either, and in fact specifically mentioned that I did not necessarily think this was the case.

If you go back and read, I quoted you perfectly in context to the discussion, and made it clear that you were talking about Iraq. However, If you weren't trying to relate that situation to this one, then the point was irrelevent. That is a failure on YOUR part for bringing irrelevent points into the discussion.

So you ignore the breadth of my point to nitpick the semantics. Classy.

Your statement about needing proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt", and my pointing out that this is an overly strong statement is NOT a nitpick on semantics. Its a pretty clear line you've drawn on how strong you feel the evidence should be. My point is that expecting such strong evidence, is never going to be feasible in a war-time situation, which is exactly what this is. That's why the term "Fog of war" exists.

What measures?

Already fucking answered

The current administration's methods have been identical to the previous administration's in essentially every aspect of the way the war is being conducted, from drone strikes to CIA "black sites." If it has been the same in every other way, what evidence do we have that they have fixed any procedural or institutional errors that have contributed to previous debacles?

LOL bullshit. How about you PROVE that the methods are identical to the previous administration.

What position are you taking? When you dismiss any talk of oversight, review, transparency, or any other process by which the evidence can be properly vetted as being the results of paranoid delusion, you are heavily implying that you don't view any of those guidelines as being proper means.

Methods for determining whether or not U.S. citizens are acting in a leadership capacity should be the same as they are for any other nationality. The rules of war still apply, and such has been made clear by the DoJ memo. Those are the guidelines to which I am and have been referring to. If anything, by placing additional restrictions such as "feasability of capture", the DoJ memo goes above and beyond what should be considered strictly neccessary.

My position has been consistent from the start. You've failed to produce any support for your "argument", if that's what you want to call your constant repition of your feelings devoid of facts. Your debate style is rather evocative of what I hear from right-wing pundits. You choose to simply talk louder when they really don't have anything of substance. If that's what you were going for, then WELL DONE.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Your argument style is basically to restate your opinion (read NOT an argument supported by facts), then scream and fall back to ad hominem attacks when I don't agree with you.

I have been forced to restate my argument because YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ADDRESS IT. You must be trolling, right? If you actually addressed the argument instead of strawmanning or moving the goalposts as you have done so far, I wouldn't have to restate it, now would I?

How hard is this to understand? I am asking you to justify YOUR claim. I have already very clearly explained why I think some form of due process is needed, and that argument has been echoed in this thread dozens of times.

This is not a law enforcement situation, it is a military one. Please cite any time in history that military targets have been subject to "judicial review".

I would argue that the fact that the Geneva conventions and the International Criminal Court exist are proof of precedent. But let's ignore that, for now, and focus just on the U.S..

Furthermore, Marbury vs. Madison does not exempt the president's war powers from judicial review. There have also been Supreme Court cases focusing on the extent of the executive's powers with regards to enemy combatants (both foreign and American). Furthermore, this court decision upholds the right of detainees to DUE PROCESS.

So, the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that these extrajudicial killings should be exempt from judicial review, due process, etc.

I'm going to guess, though, that you completely ignore this part of my post in order to strawman my argument ... again.

If you go back and read, I quoted you perfectly in context to the discussion, and made it clear that you were talking about Iraq. However, If you weren't trying to relate that situation to this one, then the point was irrelevent. That is a failure on YOUR part for bringing irrelevent points into the discussion.

It wasn't irrelevant you thunderous dolt. Seriously, how fucking illiterate are you? I have spelled out my point quite clearly in at least a half dozen posts, and you still REFUSE to even acknowledge what my point is.

Not only are you selectively quoting my posts in order to conveniently bypass the points you are incapable of answering, but you have the gall to call my points irrelevant, when anyone with a functioning brain can understand the parallel I was trying to make.

Seriously, asshole, this is the last time I am asking you before I must just assume you are conceding the argument entirely:

Given the PROVEN history of improper use of intelligence (in the invasion of Iraq), how can we be sure that the intelligence is NOW being used properly?

Your statement about needing proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt", and my pointing out that this is an overly strong statement is NOT a nitpick on semantics. Its a pretty clear line you've drawn on how strong you feel the evidence should be.

Yes, it IS a nitpick on semantics, because you are using this issue to completely dodge the bulk of my argument. I said "beyond a shadow of a doubt" once, and you are harping on it, conveniently overlooking the rest of my posts which are rather clearly talking about due process. If it will make you happy, I will retract the 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' line, even though it is obviously just a turn of phrase and not an actual legal boundary. Now with that out of the way, will you actually address my argument?

Already fucking answered

Um ... no, you didn't answer the point. Your dishonesty is getting to be incredibly overbearing.

What do you think you are accomplishing by lying like this? Everyone can go back and see the exchange for themselves.

You have not mentioned or cited a single measure. You just waived your hands and mumbled "different administration." That's not a measure, and I pointed out that without specific proof we have no reason to believe they are conducting these operations any differently than in the past.

LOL bullshit.

Then what's changed asshole? This is the THIRD FUCKING TIME I have asked you to prove your assertion.

How about you PROVE that the methods are identical to the previous administration.

The Obama administration has not changed a thing. The drone strikes have continued (in fact, increased). There are still CIA black sites (in fact, there may be more of them). Obama has not closed Guantanamo.

So far as I can tell, everything the Obama administration has done to conduct this war has been in keeping with the methodology used before 2008.

I've asked you multiple times, and you haven't answered: WHAT HAS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DONE DIFFERENTLY?

Methods for determining whether or not U.S. citizens are acting in a leadership capacity should be the same as they are for any other nationality.

And what are these methods?

You've failed to produce any support for your "argument", if that's what you want to call your constant repition of your feelings devoid of facts. Your debate style is rather evocative of what I hear from right-wing pundits. You choose to simply talk louder when they really don't have anything of substance. If that's what you were going for, then WELL DONE.

The best part about all of this is that everyone else can read this thread and see how dishonest you are being.

The fact that you conveniently forgot to respond to about 50% of my previous post is just MORE evidence of this. The best part is that you didn't acknowledge this, so I will post it again:

To which multiple people (Ahriman238, Alyrium Denryle [twice], White Haven, Zaune, Dr. Trainwreck, Stark, Gaidin, Grumman, and myself) have responded and told you that the problem is that we don't have clear guidelines for how to classify someone as a legitimate military target in this war. You have not addressed that point at all, and in fact have refused to even acknowledge multiple posts posing the question to you. And the few times you did acknowledge them you just dismissed those fears as being "paranoid."

You literally have no legs to stand on until you stop being such an obtuse little jackass and actually address the argument that has now been made by 9 separate people in this thread.

[TheHammer]

Ziggy, has anyone told you how fucking annoying your habit of separating sentences into separate quotes is? That's why I snipped half your bullshit because its difficult for everyone following this thread, if there is anyone besides you and I still following it, to read.

I'm going to demonstrate the PROPER way to quote, which is entire chunks of text rather than the snippets you seem to prefer. Watch closely now:

I have been forced to restate my argument because YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ADDRESS IT. You must be trolling, right? If you actually addressed the argument instead of strawmanning or moving the goalposts as you have done so far, I wouldn't have to restate it, now would I?

How hard is this to understand? I am asking you to justify YOUR claim. I have already very clearly explained why I think some form of due process is needed, and that argument has been echoed in this thread dozens of times.

And what is your idea of "due process"? You've left that rather vague. I've never challenged the premise of "due process" but then I ascribe it to its more general meaning, that things are done in a manner that is legal.

I have been forced to restate my argument because YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ADDRESS IT. You must be trolling, right? If you actually addressed the argument instead of strawmanning or moving the goalposts as you have done so far, I wouldn't have to restate it, now would I?

How hard is this to understand? I am asking you to justify YOUR claim. I have already very clearly explained why I think some form of due process is needed, and that argument has been echoed in this thread dozens of times.

TheHammer wrote:
This is not a law enforcement situation, it is a military one. Please cite any time in history that military targets have been subject to "judicial review".

I would argue that the fact that the Geneva conventions and the International Criminal Court exist are proof of precedent. But let's ignore that, for now, and focus just on the U.S..

Furthermore, Marbury vs. Madison does not exempt the president's war powers from judicial review. There have also been Supreme Court cases focusing on the extent of the executive's powers with regards to enemy combatants (both foreign and American). Furthermore, this court decision upholds the right of detainees to DUE PROCESS.

So, the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that these extrajudicial killings should be exempt from judicial review, due process, etc.

The Geneva convention lays out rules of war certainly, but as already noted, strikes against targets on the kill list are to be done in methods fully consistent with those rules. The U.S. isn't a participant in the ICC, and thus it is irrelevent. The SCOTUS cases you cited were specific to detainees, not individuals still actively participating in the conflict. Different rules apply to active enemy forces than they do to prisoners, as should be obvious.

Perhaps I should clarify, when I said "judicial review" I did not mean that wars were conducted without any rule of law in mind, rather that specific military targets are not brought before a judge before a determination to strike them is made. If you've got a counter example of a situation, such as say where a judge is brought in to approve a cruise missile launch against a target before that launch is made, please cite it.

Um ... no, you didn't answer the point. Your dishonesty is getting to be incredibly overbearing.

What do you think you are accomplishing by lying like this? Everyone can go back and see the exchange for themselves.

You have not mentioned or cited a single measure. You just waived your hands and mumbled "different administration." That's not a measure, and I pointed out that without specific proof we have no reason to believe they are conducting these operations any differently than in the past.
....
The Obama administration has not changed a thing. The drone strikes have continued (in fact, increased). There are still CIA black sites (in fact, there may be more of them). Obama has not closed Guantanamo.

So far as I can tell, everything the Obama administration has done to conduct this war has been in keeping with the methodology used before 2008.

I've asked you multiple times, and you haven't answered: WHAT HAS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DONE DIFFERENTLY?
....

Given the PROVEN history of improper use of intelligence (in the invasion of Iraq), how can we be sure that the intelligence is NOW being used properly?

Taking these points together because they are closely related.

Iraq and Gitmo were mistakes made under the previous administration. Closing Gitmo is still a goal, and the fact that it remains open isn't for lack of trying. Black-Op sites and Drone strikes aren't inherently evil. They are tools, that like any other tool, can be used properly or improperly. The sins of the father don't apply. You have entirely new leadership in the Executive branch, and the CIA has had multiple leadership shakeups since then. Replacing personnel IS a measure in and of itself. There are also known changes (removal of "enhanced interrogation techniques" for example), as well as obvious changes that would be made as a result of lessons learned from past mistakes.

So, HOW CAN WE KNOW that inteligence is being used properly? Unless you can find evidence of new blunders under the current administration, a presumption of competance, and integrity should exist. In short, they should be given the benefit of the doubt that they are following proper procedures, and ethical practices unless they give us clear reason to think otherwise.

TheHammer wrote:
Methods for determining whether or not U.S. citizens are acting in a leadership capacity should be the same as they are for any other nationality.

And what are these methods?

I suspect that's the subject of another memo, probably something entitled "Methods for determining a leadership role in Al Qaeda". Thus, outside the scope of this discussion. I'm sure I could google it and find something for you, but do your own damn research and if you find something you want to debate about those methods then feel free to bring it up in another topic. My only expectation is that the same standard is applied regardless of nationality.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I suspect that's the subject of another memo, probably something entitled "Methods for determining a leadership role in Al Qaeda". Thus, outside the scope of this discussion.

Are you asinine? The entire discussion hinges on this point. That's what we were fucking arguing about: how they determine that these targets are legitimate, whether these methods are reliable and trustworthy.

Your argument hinges on assuming that the government has good methods and is using them (and the intelligence) appropriately. My argument is that the American intelligence apparatus has a recent history of misusing intelligence, and without some method of transparency, review, or any sort of process we have no way of knowing whether or not these targets are legitimate.

If you really think that "methods for determining a leadership role in Al Qaeda" are "outside the scope of this discussion", then we were either arguing about completely different things, or you are just moving the goalposts again. Either way, there's no point in another line-by-line rebuttal. I will address this part though:

Iraq and Gitmo were mistakes made under the previous administration. Closing Gitmo is still a goal, and the fact that it remains open isn't for lack of trying. Black-Op sites and Drone strikes aren't inherently evil. They are tools, that like any other tool, can be used properly or improperly. The sins of the father don't apply. You have entirely new leadership in the Executive branch, and the CIA has had multiple leadership shakeups since then. Replacing personnel IS a measure in and of itself. There are also known changes (removal of "enhanced interrogation techniques" for example), as well as obvious changes that would be made as a result of lessons learned from past mistakes.

You are completely misunderstanding the point of what I said. I never said black-op sites or drone strikes are inherently evil, or anything even remotely resembling that. My point was that the methodology used by the current administration is superficially IDENTICAL to that used by the previous administration, so without clear evidence of a procedural change, we have no reason to assume that different personnel = different methods. If it walks like a duck, etc.

So, HOW CAN WE KNOW that inteligence is being used properly? Unless you can find evidence of new blunders under the current administration, a presumption of competance, and integrity should exist. In short, they should be given the benefit of the doubt that they are following proper procedures, and ethical practices unless they give us clear reason to think otherwise.

Previous ethical lapses are a clear reason to think otherwise, in my mind.

[TheHammer]

I suspect that's the subject of another memo, probably something entitled "Methods for determining a leadership role in Al Qaeda". Thus, outside the scope of this discussion.

Are you asinine? The entire discussion hinges on this point. That's what we were fucking arguing about: how they determine that these targets are legitimate, whether these methods are reliable and trustworthy.

Your argument hinges on assuming that the government has good methods and is using them (and the intelligence) appropriately. My argument is that the American intelligence apparatus has a recent history of misusing intelligence, and without some method of transparency, review, or any sort of process we have no way of knowing whether or not these targets are legitimate.

If you really think that "methods for determining a leadership role in Al Qaeda" are "outside the scope of this discussion", then we were either arguing about completely different things, or you are just moving the goalposts again. Either way, there's no point in another line-by-line rebuttal. I will address this part though:

If anyone is "moving the goalposts" it would be you. The scope of the memo was entirely about the legality of killing American Citizens acting in a leadership capacity in Al Qaeda without trial and without judicial oversight. I've argued that the fact that there even is a kill list IS a form of oversight over the Military from the Administrative branch that is not afforded most members in a leadership role in an enemy force. A bonus, if you will, that goes above and beyond what should be strictly neccessary.

The Military has criteria by which they determine who is part of an enemy force, and as long as those rules are applied across the board I'm satisifed as to the legality of it. I suspect they use criteria similar to your "If it walks like a duck" scenario. If it's routinely seen with Al Qaeda, referred to in communications as part of Al Qaeda, and appears to be planning attacks for Al Qaeda, its probably Al Qaeda. Could those methods be flawed? Possibly, but without supporting evidence that's as far as that discussion can go. And it would be on you to come up with that evidence.

Iraq and Gitmo were mistakes made under the previous administration. Closing Gitmo is still a goal, and the fact that it remains open isn't for lack of trying. Black-Op sites and Drone strikes aren't inherently evil. They are tools, that like any other tool, can be used properly or improperly. The sins of the father don't apply. You have entirely new leadership in the Executive branch, and the CIA has had multiple leadership shakeups since then. Replacing personnel IS a measure in and of itself. There are also known changes (removal of "enhanced interrogation techniques" for example), as well as obvious changes that would be made as a result of lessons learned from past mistakes.

You are completely misunderstanding the point of what I said. I never said black-op sites or drone strikes are inherently evil, or anything even remotely resembling that. My point was that the methodology used by the current administration is superficially IDENTICAL to that used by the previous administration, so without clear evidence of a procedural change, we have no reason to assume that different personnel = different methods. If it walks like a duck, etc.

You emphasized the wrong word there, but you hit on the right point: SUPERFICIALLY identical. However, as far as substance goes you don't hear the same stories coming out about the current administration than you do about the last one, aside from the fact that they both used the same tools. All of your examples were fuckups by Bush and his cronies. The leadership responsible for making the decisions that lead to those fuckups has been replaced. Given the lack of repeat fuckups, it is more logical to assume change rather than the status quo.

So, HOW CAN WE KNOW that inteligence is being used properly? Unless you can find evidence of new blunders under the current administration, a presumption of competance, and integrity should exist. In short, they should be given the benefit of the doubt that they are following proper procedures, and ethical practices unless they give us clear reason to think otherwise.

Previous ethical lapses are a clear reason to think otherwise, in my mind.

Previous ethical lapses by the previous administration are not evidence to think otherwise. The fact that many of the more controversial practices have been discontinued, i.e. not adding any more detainees to Gitmo/working to resolve the status of detainees already there, and stopping the enhanced interrogation techniques, is evidence to the contrary of your assertion.