Court Releases DOJ Memo Justifying Drone Strike On US Citizen 371
An anonymous reader writes in with news that the memo presenting a case for killing Anwar al-Awlaki has been released thanks to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Monday released a secret 2010 Justice Department memo justifying the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S citizen killed in a drone strike in 2011. The court released the document as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union to make the document public. Then-acting Assistant Attorney General David Barron, in the partially redacted 41-page memo, outlines the justification of the drone strike in Yemen to take out al-Awlaki, an alleged operational leader of al Qaeda.
Yeah sure (Score:5, Insightful)
"Alleged" operational leader. No trial. Bam! You're dead.
Welcome to Soviet USA.
Re:Yeah sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently, this is because the global war on terror is a 'non-international armed conflict', albeit one where the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force is geographically (and temporally, enjoy kids!) unbounded.
What is not clear (at least from my reading) is where the boundary is between 'an armed and dangerous criminal justice problem' and a 'non-international armed conflict' between the United States and a non-state group. Al Qaeda is apparently in (aided by; but not strictly because of, the AUMF), so killing or imprisoning people we believe to be members, on or off a battlefield, in countries with any level of active conflict, is A-OK. Who else would qualify for this rather unenviable status?
Could we be at war with the Sinola Cartel if we wanted to? The Crips?
Re: (Score:2)
The US Government has given weapons, training, and funding to Al Qada in Libya and Syria. Of course we killed a few in Iraq and Afghanistan, because you know. "Terrorists". So the real problem with these groups is whether or not they are playing ball with the US, or have duped the US into believing they are playing ball. Nothing more, nothing less. If they don't play ball, obviously they are terrorists that are going to build canoes and paddle to the US and nuke us with all of the materials they can fit
Re: (Score:3)
You left out the bit about, it also includes any person or person who happen to be in the near vicinity at the time, death sentence by proximate association, all inclusive of sex, age, innocence or guilt. So a terrorist baby in a combat assault pram who happens to be too close at the time of the is also guilty and sentenced to death. The only people convicted by memo here, is the ones who criminally wrote the memo and the ones who criminally acted based upon the memo.
Re: (Score:3)
(This would be more obviously sarcastic were it not for the... striking... analysis provided by the then-commander of JTF-GTMO: 'Honor bound to defend freedom.', of three detainee suicides; "They are smart, they are creative, they are committed," Admiral Harris said. "They have no regard for life, neither
Re: (Score:3)
Munitions delivery is fundamentally the same business, ethically speaking, whether you can afford ICBMs, or whether you get a shabby backpack and a T-shirt and have to walk it in on foot. What you blow up is what counts.
Re: (Score:2)
Anwar al-Awlaki posted videos urging all Muslims to commit violence against American civilians. Regardless of his specific role within al Qaeda, he certainly declared himself an "enemy combatant".
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/30/anwar-al-awlaki-video-blogs
Re: (Score:2)
Anwar al-Awlaki posted videos urging all Muslims to commit violence against American civilians.
Posting videos is sufficient? So not only is "freedom of speech" suspended but posting videos merits extra-judicial capital punishment anywhere in the world.
That's no better than Iranian fatwas urging the assasination of people who offend them. On the other hand Iran didn't actually dispatch the military to execute on those fatwas... we did.
But we're better because we're a "Christian nation" and don't call them fa
Re:Yeah sure (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to freedom of speech is not unrestricted:
Perhaps not, but punishable by death, for speech?? Even "illegal speech"?
From the linked article he wasn't just posting videos urging violence but was also involved in planning attacks against U.S. persons.
Should be: allegedly involved
So, if he was involved, To what extent was his involvement, and what was the sentence? Was he allowed to confront his accusors? Was he given due process?
I'm not saying he was a good guy, or even that its likely that he was a good guy, but seeing as we just executed him, extra judicially, with no due process, WE are NOT the "good guys" either.
Beating the terrorists by becoming them is not a victory at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not, but punishable by death, for speech?? Even "illegal speech"?
Being an accessory to murder as often as Anwar al-Awlaki was would earn you enough 20 year sentences to fill a hundred lifetimes. The man got what he deserved. Yes, the legal precedent that the Whitehouse set is a bit unsettling, but you can't argue that al-Awlaki didn't get what he deserved.
Re:Yeah sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Being an accessory to murder as often as Anwar al-Awlaki was would earn you enough 20 year sentences to fill a hundred lifetimes.
The part that's missing is the murder trial before sentencing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah sure (Score:4, Interesting)
"Alleged" operational leader. No trial. Bam! You're dead.
Welcome to Soviet USA.
I don't think this particular situation is quite so simple. If Anwar al-Awlaki had joined the military of a country that had declared war on the United States, there would be no reasonable expectation of him being entitled to a criminal trial, because he would not be strictly speaking a criminal: he would be an enemy combatant, and furthermore no longer even an American citizen (since you cannot remain a US citizen while serving in the military of another country). The question is whether joining a paramilitary terrorist organization like Al Qaeda that isn't directly affiliated with a recognized nation-state triggers the same situation. He voluntarily made his affiliations public and also actively advocated violent acts against the United States and its citizens. I would myself like to know what evidence the government had that he posed a legitimate ongoing threat against the country, but I don't think its reasonable to try in abstentia every single member of al-Qaeda before lethal force can be used against them.
We are supposed to make the presumption that even when the burden is high, all suspected criminals are entitled to a fair trial before they are punished by the government for their alleged crimes. But there have always been two exceptions to that presumption that most people find reasonable. The first is that law enforcement may use force, including lethal force, to interrupt a crime in process. We assume the burden of proof is relaxed in that environment, because its literally impossible to adjudicate a fair trial in the middle of a crime. And the second are acts of war, where the government can act against declared enemies of the country. We can't hold a trial for each individual enemy soldier we come across before shooting at them. The question is whether al-Qaeda is a criminal organization or a political one that can be legitimately considered a national enemy.
Of course, even in times of war we do not generally assassinate the political leaders of the enemy; there is a notion that even an enemy country has a civilian population and a military. But its unclear to me that rule generally applies to al-Qaeda, as they do not have very much non-military infrastructure (besides financing). I would be uncomfortable with targeting al-Qaeda lawyers or bankers or spokespersons. But I'm not particularly disturbed by targeting of people directly involved in the planning or execution of terrorist activities.
I recognize that's not a particularly popular opinion, and its more nuanced than can easily be articulated. For example, I don't consider the Boston bombers to be anything but (alleged) criminals entitled to the full legal rights of the legal system. Unless contradictory information becomes known, whether they committed a terrorist act and whether they sympathize with or even claim membership in a terrorist organization, if there's no proof they were actually acting as agents of that organization, any US citizen acting within the borders of the United States is still entitled to full legal rights no matter how heinous their alleged acts. I just don't think al-Awlaki acted in a manner consistent with being entitled to those same protections.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just don't think al-Awlaki acted in a manner consistent with being entitled to those same protections.
Wrong. No matter what group he was part of, he's still a US citizen. He's entitled to all the same protections, and the constitution says *nothing* that says otherwise.
Re:Yeah sure (Score:4, Informative)
We are supposed to make the presumption that even when the burden is high, all suspected criminals are entitled to a fair trial before they are punished by the government for their alleged crimes. But there have always been two exceptions to that presumption that most people find reasonable. The first is that law enforcement may use force, including lethal force, to interrupt a crime in process. We assume the burden of proof is relaxed in that environment, because its literally impossible to adjudicate a fair trial in the middle of a crime. And the second are acts of war, where the government can act against declared enemies of the country. We can't hold a trial for each individual enemy soldier we come across before shooting at them. The question is whether al-Qaeda is a criminal organization or a political one that can be legitimately considered a national enemy.
Not quite. No police shooting is a punishment for an alleged crime, it is a right to self defense (and by extension, the defense of innocents) being exercised. As such, it is only legal if there is a current credible threat (for example, the suspect draws a gun and moves to take aim at someone) If the suspect survives, they will still face a trial for the original charges (because the shooting was not punishment for the alleged crime).
Incitement of future violence or even planning future violence don't meet the immediacy necessary to use lethal force in self defense. In those cases, arrest is permitted with a speedy public trial to follow.
If we want to claim that the activities constitute joining a foreign military (and they might), due process still requires an appropriate hearing to determine that he has surrendered his citizenship.
Re: (Score:3)
You are close, but the Bill of Rights states that lethal force may need to be used to protect the public from eminent danger. Not "just because a cop feels like it" (which we seem to have an awful lot of lately).
Anwar al Awlaki may have been making videos telling people that they should do things to the US, but that is most certainly not presenting any eminent danger. Even if he was building an army until he starts gunning for Americans he is fine to do so. Hell, the US helps to arm and train militants t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The poor, rednecks, country folk, bible thumpers, etc that you try to make fun of using the derisive term "'Merica" are the very ones who are quickest to shed their own blood so that you can live in a nation where you are free to be an ass.
Re:Yeah sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because destroying backwaters half way around the world is a surefire way to make the US 'free'.
Re: (Score:3)
How about all the millions of innocents they've killed.
They sure as hell aren't free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Free? You call yourself free?
The only reason you may still speak what you feel like is 'cause your leaders learned that it doesn't matter jack what you say. Should you for some odd reason actually become important enough that people listen to you, you'll be silenced soon enough, don't worry.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The poor, rednecks, country folk, bible thumpers, etc that you try to make fun of using the derisive term "'Merica" are the very ones who are quickest to shed their own blood
They are willing to do this because they are stupid.
Their willingness to go to a country which HAS NOT ATTACKED THE UNITED STATES
and kill people in that country is not a noble thing, all it proves is that these people are
willing chumps for the swine who run the military industrial complex.
Your bullshit about how these people who sign up to die useless deaths are "keeping
the US free" is a lie only an idiot would believe or try to pass off as true.
I watched dozens of my buddies die in a little place called Vi
Re: (Score:2)
When this happens and there aren't enough people serving their country, they enacts this thing called a draft in which you are forced to join the army and if you do poorly, you end up being fodder for the people more likely to survive to find cover behind while they kick ass.
I'm trying to understand this... Are you glorifying cowards who use other people as human shields? Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be all for the utter and total betrayal of the "beta" soldiers, for the betterment of the "alpha" soldiers. There doesn't seem to be much else to say.
Re: (Score:3)
They are keeping you free.
They're doing a lousy job of it. The US has become significantly less free over the past decade and a half. Keeping your country requires taking an interest in how your own country is run, rather than messing with how other countries are run.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that worked so well with Vietnam.
How many other things is there a large public outcry about that the politicians ignore? securing the borders might be one. The patriot act and it's evolution might be one. Gitmo might be one. More people apposed the PPACA than support it at certain times. Wall street banker bail outs I guess might be one, but of course everyone supported that. Hell, there is a large outcry over the IRS BS but one side of the politicians fear it will come back onto the administration s
Re:Yeah sure (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to be sympathetic to your sentiment, but there is no one outside of the United States threatening our freedom. That's a fact. There is no one in the military fighting for our freedom. Granted, they may stand ready to defend our freedom, should a foreign threat materialize, but that's a different story.
Sadly, the real threat to our freedom is from within. It's from people in government who fancy themselves on the side of the angels and who think it's okay to bend or break the rules—a.k.a. the Constitution—to defend the "homeland." They're setting up the legal framework and law enforcement infrastructure that will completely obliterate the United States of America for good. What will be left is lines on a map claiming a heritage it has no right to.
Re: (Score:3)
The constitution has been bent from the very beginning.
John Adams with the Alien and Sedition Act.
Jefferson with the Louisiana purchase.
And pretty much every president since.
Don't act like this is anything new. We've always had to balance rights against pragmatism.
Not so much... (Score:3)
I'd like
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. Sorry. The USA may be a lot, but they ain't no USSR.
The rent's WAY too high, the food way too expensive, and you're actually expected to be at work during work hours and work. That's not the worker's paradise!
But aside of that, you're getting close.
Re: (Score:2)
I pity everyone living in Alabama and Alaska.
Re:Yeah sure (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are in a state of war with a country, within some limits it is expected that you can kill people in that country. Where things get complicated is when you are in an ill defined state of hostility against a non-state organization like Al Qaeda. What are the rules on declaring someone to be part of that organization and there for a military target? While this question applies to any possible targets, it is especially troublesome when the target is an american citizen. The government cannot execute an american citizen without a trial. Can it declare an american citizen to be a member of a foreign military and then execute them? This would seem to completely bypass the constitutional right to a fair trial.
In a standard state-war it is fairly simple: If they are in an enemy country it is OK to kill them in the same way that it was OK to kill anyone else in that country. An american arrested for treason in the US on the other hand would get a trial. In a conventional state war you don't bomb countries that are not enemy states.
The level of activity to be considered a target for execution is also a tricky question. It is clearly OK to return fire if fired upon. When his actions are less direct it becomes more difficult.
At the root of all this is that the concept of "war" has changed and laws have not kept up with 21st century wars.
Re: (Score:2)
By "declaring war" on entities which do not exhibit the traits of Westphalian sovereignty, the political class has tacitly undermined their claim of territorial integrity.
Re: Yeah sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Blurring the lines between soldiers and terrorists is exceptionally dangerous, especially for America.
After all, using the implication of what you wrote above, it would apparently be OK for the British Royal Air Force to drone strike Congress, because a Republican congressman has been and probably still is an outspoken supporter of Irish republican terrorism [wikipedia.org]. And if a few innocent other congressmen get blown to bits too, well that's unfortunate collateral damage but I guess they shouldn't have been hanging around known supporters of terrorism should they? The world's a battlefield these days.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Somehow most countries manage to treat terrorists just like regular criminals. Lots of IRA members are sitting in jail at the moment - not spread over the countryside in tiny pieces courtesy of a drone strike.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If the person died in a firefight against soldiers we would not be having the discussion would we? Nope, but that is not the reality. An assassination based on hearsay which repeatedly uses the word "imagine" is not the same thing. "I think" is not a crime, "I do" is a crime.
Read the Bill of Rights, and it will become clear. The law is spelled out very well in the 5th and 6th amendments.
Re:Yeah sure (Score:4, Interesting)
So who decides who's a threat? Do you have a Star Chamber for that, or do you skip such formalities and just let your president decide who eats polonium or bombs?
I knew the US was decaying, but I didn't realize it was quite this close to the point of collapse.
So who did the guy have at gunpoint? Police officers aren't allowed to shoot wanted criminals walking on the street as a precaution against the possibility that they might pull a gun. And they definitely aren't allowed to decide one won't get a trial. Or at least the law doesn't allow them to; I'm beginning to suspect that means precious little in America.
"Assasination" means you want someone dead so you kill them. Subtleties only come in as a way of lying to yourself about what you're doing.
How does this not violate the 5th and/or 14th... (Score:4, Interesting)
...amendments to the Constitution?
Obama is turning out to be just as bad as the Neo-Cons when it comes to "protecting us from ourselves."
Re:How does this not violate the 5th and/or 14th.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How does this not violate the 5th and/or 14th.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or you just never heard about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Which means GOP never tried to legitimize their illegal actions, making it more difficult to follow suit in the future. Obama meanwhile wants to throw open the oppression floodgates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That IS a major turning point. There is a huge difference between occasionally killing people in secret and declaring that the government has the right to kill citizens without a trial. Secret killings need to be limited in number or they can't be kept secret. Once execution without trials is in the open, what limits the numbers?
Re: (Score:2)
They did, actually.
The CIA killed a 'terrorist' despite knowing that a U.S. citizen, Kamal Derwish, was in the vehicle at the time.
Apparently before 2002 there was a 'secret finding' that you could assassinate U.S. citizens who the government believed were aiding Al Qaeda.
That f***ing a**hole Bin Laden won the minute we started destroying our own constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Are those parts, perhaps, untenable in some situations?
Example: If you're some sort of murdering loon with a predisposition to blow up schools in not-Americania where you have been living for several years, then...
If you're a "U.S. citizen", you should be captured alive and tried properly - in the U.S., of course - enjoy all the protections provided by the law, and if you're very lucky you get to be relatively comfortable while waiting to hear if you get
Re:How does this not violate the 5th and/or 14th.. (Score:5, Interesting)
You should find it fascinating. Outside of moral grounds, there are bonds that empower the government of the US that also places limits on the government. One of those limits is the right to due process when you are in US jurisdiction. A US citizen is in US jurisdiction wherever they are. A terrorist or even a school teacher who looks like a terrorist in another country might not be. Put those same people in the US, and they have the same right to due process.
Now right may be the wrong words here. The bonds that empower the federal government, the Constitution, forbids the government from denying due process to "we the people" except in a narrow window in which habeas corpus can be suspended- but that requires custody of the person and does not allow extrajudicial punishment outside of holding a person.
So no matter how contrived they can make an excuse to execute a foreigner on foreign soil, the government is expressly forbidden to do so on a US citizen who has not been afforded due process or is not showing an imminent threat to others. Of course in one of these instances, it seems to be collateral damage. It would be like a cop shooting at a suspect shooting other people and in the process killing a citizen with a stray bullet 2 blocks away. Not a criminal act, but the state is still responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's amendments that guarantee those rights - not sure if that invalidates the 'founding documents' bit.
But my question was specifically with regard to the "to its citizens" part. What makes "its citizens" all the more special, when it's rather difficult to see what qualifies a person as a "citizen" given the circumstances outlined.
So perhaps my interest should be more d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. The United States--theoretically of course--does not violate the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights of *anyone*. That is, if you're a foreigner, even one in the country illegally, you are afforded due process just like any other citizen. But that's for matters occurring within the boundaries of the United States.
For the USA to kill a foreigner on foreign soil, I would say that constitutes an act of war, thus the laws of war (Geneva Conventions, et al.) should a
Re: (Score:2)
That f***ing a**hole Bin Laden won the minute we started destroying our own constitution.
So he won around 200 years ago? Our Rights have been eroding since day one :-/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to the Washington Post the CIA knew he was in the car. Several news outlets report this (although that could be parroting the Washington Post); however, several early reports about the attack appear to show the CIA proud that they killed Derwish as well (although that quickly changed after people got wind that he was an American.)
Apparently there was a 'secret finding' making this ok back in 2001/2002.
George Tenet is a yes man.
Re: (Score:2)
Military justification (Score:2)
This is an interesting case.
First: "Attorney General Eric Holder last year outlined a three-pronged justification for targeted killings of a U.S. citizen who is a leader of al Qaeda: The suspect must pose an imminent threat, capture must be infeasible, and the strike needs to adhere to applicable war principles."
Hmm...
Imminent threat: IE People are going to be killed if we don't take him out. Same justification for killing a US Citizen(or anybody else) within the USA without trial.
Capture Infeasible: See
Re: (Score:3)
This is unconstitutional, period. No person shall be punished for any crime without a trial, read your Bill of Rights. There is no exception clause for US Citizen, it's all people. Them claiming "We think he's going to do something" does not even meet their own criteria. Should we all post on Facebook that Angelina Merkel is going to bomb a post office so that she can be killed by a drone? Yes, that is exactly why they killed the person in question. No proof of any plans, just that they believed it wa
Re: (Score:3)
al-Aulaqi declared himself an enemy combatant and a member of a group which we are at war with, which Congress has authorized "necessary and appropriate" force against.
So, now that we have AUMF, we make sure that the DOD played by the rules of war -- check.
And finally, since it's illegal (generally speaking) to kill people, we make one last check to see if it's "murder" to kill a US citizen when they switch sides in a war. ...turns out it's not.
Boom.
Re: (Score:2)
"al-Aulaqi declared himself an enemy combatant and a member of a group which we are at war with"
Did he? How do you know?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know?
Maybe the whole going to Yemen, hanging out with Fahd al-Quso and taking up a leadership role in the AQAP thing?
Re: (Score:2)
But all of this information comes from the same government that executed him. Its very likely he was involved, but did his involvement rise to the level of a capital crime? Is there even a death sentence for conspiracy to commit murder?
Military use of force (Score:3)
Common mistake, but the important thing to note is that he isn't being punished. He's being killed in the pursuit of war, authorized under article 1, section 8 of the constitution: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
As such "but did his involvement rise to the level of a capital crime? Is there even a death sentence for conspiracy to commit murder?" are two irrelevant questions. As a member of the opposing military faction that the
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if you live within 100 miles inside the boarder, you have no Rights anyway. Stands to reason it would be even more so outside the border.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop cheering me up...
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse... I believe all international airports are defined to be part of the border.
Re: (Score:3)
The memo cites case law to justify the suppression of 4th and 5th amendment rights. For example:
at least where high-level government officials have determined that a capture operation overseas is infeasible and that the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and is engaged in activities that pose a continued and imminent threat to U.S. persons or interests the use of lethal force would not violate the Fourth Amendment. and thus that the intrusion on any Fourth Amendment interests would be outweighed by "the importance of the governmental interests [that] justify the intrusion," Garner, 4 71 U.S. at 8, based on the facts that have been represented to us.
and:
In Hamdi, a plurality of the Supreme Court used the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test to analyze the Fifth Amendment due process rights of a U.S. citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and detained in the United States who wished to challenge the government's assertion that he was a part of enemy forces, explaining rbat "the process due in any given instance is determined by weighing 'the private interest that will be affected by the official action' against the Government's asserted interest, 'including the function involved' and the burdens the Government would face in providing greater process." 542 U.S. at 529 (plurality opinion) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)).
So if I'm reading this correctly, 4th amendment rights don't apply if the government deems that its interests outweigh yours, and 5th amendment rights don't apply if the the government deems that its interests outweigh yours or the government asserts that it would be excessively burdensome to give you due process.
The only reasonable interpretation of this is that the government of the United States has become
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first term of "Hope and Change" was not enough to prove he is nothing more than a liar?
Sorry, Republicans handed him the perfect excuse so that objective parties will really never be able to know given they basically said f*** you to anything the guy even thought about irrespective of whether or not it was good for America...
Re: (Score:3)
Um, this is the first term where he had super-majorities in both house and Senate? Where they could have passed absolutely any partisan crap they wanted? How we got Obamacare?
What exactly would it take for the Dems to "own it"?
Re: (Score:2)
Short answer: They have stopped even caring about the pretense of observing constitutional limitations on government abuses of power.
I wouldn't blame Bush or Obama, however - The process started before the ink even dried on the constitution, though it didn't get really bad until Lincoln - that great cultural icon - took us on the first big downward slide with his suspension of habeas corpus. More recently, Johnson takes the c
Re: (Score:2)
What's worse about him is that he also lied about it.
You can say about Bush whatever you want, but he was always honest about it. He was an asshole and he never hid it. Ok, one may argue that he was too stupid to hide it, but ... hell, is that all you may choose from? Is that all the US of A can get, either a dumb asshole or a sly one?
Re: (Score:2)
You can say about Bush whatever you want, but he was always honest about it
Honest about what? Why we should invade Iraq? That we aren't torturing anyone? That the CIA didn't mean to kill that American citizen?
Obama is a worse disappointment in this regard simply because everyone with half a brain should have known that as a Neo-conservative Bush would behave that way. Obama was supposed to be a return to constitutional principles. Now he might as well be making security policy with Cheney (there's a scary thought, lol...)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, "honest" would be asking a bit much from a politician. Let's rather say he was "upfront" with what he had in mind.
Or rather, with what his advisers had in mind. I doubt there was much on his mind, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps we could settle for "incapable of subtlety"... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I.e. dumb asshole vs. sly asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Lovely Latin (Score:5, Informative)
Ex post facto ex parte: We think you're guilty of a crime, so we're going to kill you and come up with the justification later.
Re:Lovely Latin (Score:5, Interesting)
The history of warfare is subdivided into three phases: retribution, anticipation, and diplomacy. Thus, retribution: “I’m going to kill you because you killed my brother.” Anticipation: “I’m going to kill you because I killed your brother.” And diplomacy: “I’m going to kill my brother and then kill you on the pretext that your brother did it.”
Re:Lovely Latin (Score:4, Informative)
With credit to Douglas Adams, sorry for the omission.
Murder (Score:3, Insightful)
Why doesn't anyone use the correct term.
Re: (Score:3)
Premeditated Murder, a Capital crime punishable by death in some states.
Re: (Score:2)
It would probably not be politically correct.
Re:Murder (Score:4, Funny)
Oops forgot the link: http://www.foxnews.com/politic... [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the traditional "Wanted: Dead or Alive" mentality that always rises up in 2nd Amendment supporters when there's a chance to stop a crime that might have only been a robbery of a fast food store or a corner convenience mart?
When you shoot someone who is in the process of committing an armed crime, there is no question as to whether or not they are actually the guilty party.
Also, usually, you are responding to an actual current, possibly deadly, threat--as opposed to the courts who only consider crimes after the fact, when the accused is detained safely.
what is so special (Score:3, Insightful)
about striking an us citizen as opposed to say an Iraqi, an Albanian, a German, or a Mexican? They do not seem to have problems with most Arab countries. Not people? Not deserving a trial?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually the US constitution recognizes the rights of all people, and additional rights of citizens. But for once stop thinking about what is legal and start thinking about what is morally correct.
US Constitution is a formation of prohibitions. (Score:2)
I think you'll find that the US Constitution purports to _prohibit_ extrajudicial action regardless of the allegiance of the individual. The fourth amendment, even if construed to only cover "The People", when combined with the tenth amendment would imply that only state-actors or individuals are able to exercise extra-judicial power.
Re: (Score:2)
The 10th amendment? The 5th? The 14? Pick any.
Condensed Version of the PDF. (Score:3)
The PDF is interesting, but essentially boils down to:
Americans killing Americans is sometimes justified.
You left off... (Score:2)
the "Because we say so." part.
You can't vote out the Gestapo.
Re: (Score:2)
the "Because we say so." part.
Hardly. Did you read the PDF? You might not agree with the assessment, but it's a LOT, LOT more than 'case we said so. It's a fairly clear step-by-step discussion of every point along the decision tree. Fascinating, actually.
Since when does as assistant atty general (Score:2, Flamebait)
Since when does a fucking bureaucrat, an acting assistant attorney general put some shit like this together and allows a capricious administration to decide who lives and dies, especially if they're a citizen of this country. Yes it was for our esteemed retard Eric Holder who ignores laws he doesn't agree with but that's beside the point. The US Military killed a US Citizen here without due process under the guises that it was "justified." Shit, If any of us tried that the judge would laugh at us and loc
Free Drone Strikes (Score:2)
Good new everyone!
All you have to do to claim your FREE drone strike is to simply mention the word "Allah" and criticize US policy in a comment below! It's that easy! Here at the Homeland Department, we've reduced the amount of government red tape you need to get a drone strike on your house. Annoying procedures like "trials" and "juries" have been removed -- saving you time and money!
But wait, there's more! Reply in the next 10 minutes, and we'll even throw in a 2nd drone strike for your family! That's
Coming soon to a neighborhood near you... (Score:2)
That's for after the election.
American Civil War (Score:2)
Whenever this sort of thing comes up I always wonder ... was the Civil War unconstitutional? That also involved military action against US citizens, and presumably the Union didn't hold trials for each individual Confederate soldier before allowing anyone to shoot at them.
What are the significant differences, if any?
Re: (Score:2)
Racist idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"US Citizen" or "US passport holder" (Score:5, Insightful)
If you support the killing of this man I happily support putting you in a cage for the rest of your life.
Are you in the streets demanding the same consequences for President Obama? For any of his staff?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm betting they intended to black out everything except a couple of random articles, both definite and indefinite (like the, an, a), but the magic marker ran dry and while that person was looking for a new one in the office supply cabinet, the messenger came by and picked it up with the other requested, but already censored to uselessness documents.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it was a court that released the memo. They have no legitimate reason to hide the truth for the administration. Especially, when it appears the administration tried to negate their importance.
There was a FOIA request and it was refused. Someone took them to court and won but the administration appealed. The appeals court released the thing- presumable redacting it themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Bush didn't authorize killing American citizens with drone strikes. He would not have needed to release such a memo.
Re: (Score:2)
but isn't it time yet for the left to start calling Obama out for it too???
What the fuck do you use for your definition of the left? The writing of Joan Walsh?