Even for those who consider Obama the best thing since sliced bread, doesn't it concern you that a Perry or Palin in the White House would inherit these assumed powers?More generally, the white paper fleshes out the Obama administration's argument that U.S. citizens killed by drones are getting all the process that is appropriate in the circumstances; hence the Fifth Amendment, though implicated, is not violated. And since these targeted killings are lawful acts of self-defense, the Justice Department says, they do not violate the law against killing U.S. nationals in foreign countries or the executive order banning assassination. After all, "A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination." Duh.
The problem is that to accept this position, you have to put complete trust in the competence, wisdom, and ethics of the president, his underlings, and their successors. You have to believe they are properly defining and inerrantly identifying people who pose an imminent (or quasi-imminent) threat to national security and eliminating that threat through the only feasible means, which involves blowing people up from a distance. If mere mortals deserved that kind of faith, we would not need a Fifth Amendment, or the rest of the Constitution.
This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the U.S. government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force[SUP]1[/SUP] of al-Qa'ida--that is, an al-Qa'ida leader actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans.
Williebee,As stated earlier, this paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful, nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances. It concludes only that the stated conditions would be sufficient to make lawful a lethal operation in a foreign country directed against a U.S. citizen with the characteristics described above.
Moreover, a lethal operation in a foreign nation would be consistent with international legal principles of sovereignty and neutrality if it were conducted, for example, with the consent of the host nation's government or after determination that the host nation is unable or unwilling to suppress the threat posed by the individual targeted.
It's in your second link:Now I wonder who, specifically, they are trying to justify killing. Because it does seem quite specific in the end:
The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.
Williebee,
No foreign nation is ruled out. So, yes, it could happen in England if the U.S. were given permission to proceed.
IF is a damned big word, and the reason for the due process protections afforded by the Constitution. The executive branch claiming the power to be judge, jury and executioner with no oversight is frightening, IMO.If an American citizen joins a terrorist organization and that organization has declared a jihad against this country and its citizens as Al Qaeda has, then they have to deal with the repercussions and if the repercussions are a deadly drone strike, oh well. No sympathy.
IF is a damned big word,
Nor does the flippant calling down of a drone strike address the issue of "collateral damage,"
If an American citizen joins a terrorist organization and that organization has declared a jihad against this country and its citizens as Al Qaeda has, then they have to deal with the repercussions and if the repercussions are a deadly drone strike, oh well. No sympathy.
IF is a damned big word, and the reason for the due process protections afforded by the Constitution. The executive branch claiming the power to be judge, jury and executioner with no oversight is frightening, IMO.
Nor does the flippant calling down of a drone strike address the issue of "collateral damage," the murder of civilians unaccused of anything who just happen to be in the same area as a declared bad guy.
Throw in the broad umbrella definitions of all those terms that allowed the killing of a 16-year-old boy because he was the son of a declared "enemy of the state" while a senior advisor blames the killing on "irresponsible parenting" and you have the ingredients for a real-life dystopia.
Apparently the President can order the killing of a child, an American citizen accused and convicted of no crime, in a separate strike because their father belonged to the wrong group. Apparently he can get away with this murder and any "collateral damage" scott-free, without any serious damage even to his reputation. I don't understand why anyone would see that as a good thing.
Don't try to make what I wrote something it isn't. Nobody flippantly called down, or suggested calling down an airstrike anywhere.
And yeah, "IF" is a big damn word. It also cuts both ways.
Throw in the broad umbrella definitions of all those terms that allowed the killing of a 16-year-old boy because he was the son of a declared "enemy of the state" while a senior advisor blames the killing on "irresponsible parenting" and you have the ingredients for a real-life dystopia.
Apparently the President can order the killing of a child, an American citizen accused and convicted of no crime, in a separate strike because their father belonged to the wrong group. Apparently he can get away with this murder and any "collateral damage" scott-free, without any serious damage even to his reputation. I don't understand why anyone would see that as a good thing.
Officials throughout the U.S. government, however, have refused to answer questions for the record about how or why Awlaki was killed Oct. 14 in a remote part of Yemen, along with eight other people.
The Obama administration has asserted the right to launch attacks against al-Qaeda members anywhere in the world, saying there is no difference between a battlefield in Afghanistan and a suspected terrorist hideout in Yemen or Somalia.
But when U.S. forces kill civilians or operations go awry in traditional war zones such as Afghanistan or Iraq, the military routinely conducts official investigations. The results are often declassified and released as public records.
Ahhhh. Thank you, Rob.
Reg, what if the U.S. citizen hasn't become a part of the terrorist group? What if the U.S. citizen, I'll call him Bill, is a jeweler. He went into their building after receiving a call from them to show them his wares. Of course, because the jewelry was a present for the leader of the group, no one was speaking in plain language, but it was all hush hush and the phone call could be interpreted in soooo many ways to mean Bill had something the terrorists wanted to further their agenda. Bill, being a businessman willing to go after the sale, met them at their place, showed him his jewelry, and they chose a necklace. Sale made. Gift given but then the rest of the members of the group thought it was such a great necklace they all wanted jewelry and called him back. And so Bill went back time and again to show and deliver jewelry. The intelligence agents had gotten his phone logs when he first entered the building and knew he was obviously up to no good because he was "selling wares to the enemy". So they had his phone tapped and him under constant surveillance. His repeated return to said enemy's building supported their hunch his jewelry business was a front for terrorist activity. And what if Bill was invited to dinner by the group because they liked that person? And what if Bill had nothing to do with the planning to kill U.S. citizens, didn't even know the group of apparent businessmen were part of a terrorist organization, but was seen by the intelligence agents as being implicated in terrorist activities? And now, because they are there a lot, they must be high up, especially after that party that was thrown for them where the comments outside the door while the terrorist was shaking Bill's hand was, "you are number one now. You will be here tomorrow, yes?"
No, can't have due process getting in the way. Just kill him. He is obviously a high up in the terrorist organization. After all, intelligence agencies never make any mistakes.
Is it really too much to ask that the Obama admin. acknowledge Abdulrahman's death and either (A) apologize for accidentally killing a US civilian or (B) if the killing was intentional, say why it was carried out?
I agree.There is a big difference between a businessman looking into a professional business transaction and a person going to a terrorist training camp and spending time there learning the ways to kill, or actively scouting civilian and military terror targets.