by Gary Farber
I say we just kill all accused murderers from now on.
Think of the money saved, the deficit, and, of course, the children.
Now that we've established that the courts and Constitution don't matter, let's just jail all the accused criminals, too. Why lose sleep? They're murderers and criminals! The state says so.
All Presidents need the power to assassinate people simply because they say so. What could go wrong?
This matters not.
Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings.
Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 6 – Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.
Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Why believe Anwar al-Awlaki was a major figure, btw? Irrelevant to the crucial question, but it again goes to the question of simply having a prosecution, without courts or trial or defence, simply because… the state says that's what should be done.
Imagine the worst President you can think of. Should that President have the power to unilaterally execute people not in the heat of battle? Are we truly "at war"? If so, when does it end?
I'm with Glenn Greenwald here.
Cross-posted at Amygdala.
ADDENDUM, 12:52 p.m., PST: presenting Professor Jonathan Turley on Obama and civil liberties.
And the “legal” defenses here and here are much less than convincing, and amount to “the executive branch views him as bad, and thus he was, or at least that view, in combination with the AUMF, means he’s subject to death on the executive’s say so. Which we’ve done.”
It’s a remarkably “trust in the executive branch” view of the world, with Congress as enabler.
And the “legal” defenses here and here are much less than convincing, and amount to “the executive branch views him as bad, and thus he was, or at least that view, in combination with the AUMF, means he’s subject to death on the executive’s say so. Which we’ve done.”
It’s a remarkably “trust in the executive branch” view of the world, with Congress as enabler.
Gary, help me here: When the South revolted, and over the course of the Civil War, Confederate soldiers were routinely captured and held in prisons without charges, counsel, bail, a trial or anything else. Many others were killed, sometimes in open battle initiated by Confederate forces and thus arguably in self defense, but other times, US troops would begin a battle, using surprise if possible, to kill or wound as many Confederate troops as possible. No warning shots, no chance to surrender, nothing, just start shooting. On US soil. Was this wrong?
Gary, help me here: When the South revolted, and over the course of the Civil War, Confederate soldiers were routinely captured and held in prisons without charges, counsel, bail, a trial or anything else. Many others were killed, sometimes in open battle initiated by Confederate forces and thus arguably in self defense, but other times, US troops would begin a battle, using surprise if possible, to kill or wound as many Confederate troops as possible. No warning shots, no chance to surrender, nothing, just start shooting. On US soil. Was this wrong?
As McKinney points out, war and peace are different. As noted by the NYT: “In a traditional war, anyone allied with the enemy, regardless of citizenship, is a legitimate target; German-Americans who fought with the Nazis in World War II were given no special treatment.”
But even when people are wanted for crimes, the frequently get killed if they resist arrest and can’t be safely apprehended.
As McKinney points out, war and peace are different. As noted by the NYT: “In a traditional war, anyone allied with the enemy, regardless of citizenship, is a legitimate target; German-Americans who fought with the Nazis in World War II were given no special treatment.”
But even when people are wanted for crimes, the frequently get killed if they resist arrest and can’t be safely apprehended.
I think the problem here, McKinney, is that the only publicly available information on Anwar al-Awlaki’s activities (that I’m aware of), which doesn’t come directly from anonymous “senior administration officials” with an interest in the matter, seems to be not only not subject to the death penalty, but not criminal at all.
And yet, boom.
I think the problem here, McKinney, is that the only publicly available information on Anwar al-Awlaki’s activities (that I’m aware of), which doesn’t come directly from anonymous “senior administration officials” with an interest in the matter, seems to be not only not subject to the death penalty, but not criminal at all.
And yet, boom.
I think the problem here, McKinney
Well, so much of this is subjective. My antipathy for this administration is not small, for reasons unrelated to this issue or the wider issue of dealing with AQ/terrorism. That said, I don’t see Obama approving this operation without really good cause and I have no trouble imagining why that ‘good cause’ must remain private.
I think the problem here, McKinney
Well, so much of this is subjective. My antipathy for this administration is not small, for reasons unrelated to this issue or the wider issue of dealing with AQ/terrorism. That said, I don’t see Obama approving this operation without really good cause and I have no trouble imagining why that ‘good cause’ must remain private.
I think that even in the Civil War it wouldn’t have been legal to kill an unarmed southern male, even if he wrote a lot of pro-secessionist propaganda. But I could be wrong.
Good to see you posting, Gary.
I think that even in the Civil War it wouldn’t have been legal to kill an unarmed southern male, even if he wrote a lot of pro-secessionist propaganda. But I could be wrong.
Good to see you posting, Gary.
I think that even in the Civil War it wouldn’t have been legal to kill an unarmed southern male, even if he wrote a lot of pro-secessionist propaganda. But I could be wrong.
What is your evidence that An-a-Al was unarmed? Or that the sole reason for killing him was an anti-US attitude?
I do agree with you: nice to have GF back.
I think that even in the Civil War it wouldn’t have been legal to kill an unarmed southern male, even if he wrote a lot of pro-secessionist propaganda. But I could be wrong.
What is your evidence that An-a-Al was unarmed? Or that the sole reason for killing him was an anti-US attitude?
I do agree with you: nice to have GF back.
“Sentence first — verdict afterwards!” said the Red Queen.
“Sentence first — verdict afterwards!” said the Red Queen.
Ugh, was there publicly available information (to use McKinney’s example) on all of the Civil War soldiers killed on all of the battlefields? The legal question would probably be: whether Yemen is a battlefield for the purposes of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
I think you are wrong, Donald.
Ugh, was there publicly available information (to use McKinney’s example) on all of the Civil War soldiers killed on all of the battlefields? The legal question would probably be: whether Yemen is a battlefield for the purposes of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
I think you are wrong, Donald.
What is your evidence that An-a-Al was unarmed?
I assume DJ has no such evidence. OTOH, there isn’t any evidence that he was armed, and it seems the burden of proof is on those asserting the latter, before dropping a JDAM on his a$$. Also, being armed in a foreign country, even while spouting anti-american propaganda, generally does not subject you to summary execution under US law, AFAICT.
Or that the sole reason for killing him was an anti-US attitude?
But part of the point, shouldn’t there be some burden to present such a reason? I mean, as we’re operating now, in the words of that classic tootsie pop commercial, “the world may never know.”
I mean, what if it turns out 30 years from now that the executive branch knew that all the guy did was produce propaganda videos and was not involved in terrorist operations at all, but instead was, hey, he managed to convince people to join the jihad, then….?
What is your evidence that An-a-Al was unarmed?
I assume DJ has no such evidence. OTOH, there isn’t any evidence that he was armed, and it seems the burden of proof is on those asserting the latter, before dropping a JDAM on his a$$. Also, being armed in a foreign country, even while spouting anti-american propaganda, generally does not subject you to summary execution under US law, AFAICT.
Or that the sole reason for killing him was an anti-US attitude?
But part of the point, shouldn’t there be some burden to present such a reason? I mean, as we’re operating now, in the words of that classic tootsie pop commercial, “the world may never know.”
I mean, what if it turns out 30 years from now that the executive branch knew that all the guy did was produce propaganda videos and was not involved in terrorist operations at all, but instead was, hey, he managed to convince people to join the jihad, then….?
Ugh–or, suppose it turns out 30 years from now that, as is said to be the case, he participated in operational planning of terrorist attacks. We can suppose either way. I’ll go first and take your hypothetical to be true: if true, it’s murder and as a gross a violation of the constitution as I can imagine.
Ball’s in your court: a US citizen in Yemen has planned and continues to plan terrorist attacks, in concert with non-US citizens, on US citizens. He is presumed to be armed and dangerous. You are President, what do you do?
Ugh–or, suppose it turns out 30 years from now that, as is said to be the case, he participated in operational planning of terrorist attacks. We can suppose either way. I’ll go first and take your hypothetical to be true: if true, it’s murder and as a gross a violation of the constitution as I can imagine.
Ball’s in your court: a US citizen in Yemen has planned and continues to plan terrorist attacks, in concert with non-US citizens, on US citizens. He is presumed to be armed and dangerous. You are President, what do you do?
sapient: The legal question would probably be: whether Yemen is a battlefield for the purposes of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
The AUMF:
the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
It seems to me the “necessary and appropriate force” part has been forgotten, or at least subsumed into “whatever the President wants to do,” which I don’t think accords with the grammar. And, in any event, it seems to me the executive has claimed the power to drop a JDAM on An-a-Al if he were sitting in a cafe in Des Moines.
Also, what of the other American killed in the attack? Sucks to be him?
sapient: The legal question would probably be: whether Yemen is a battlefield for the purposes of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
The AUMF:
the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
It seems to me the “necessary and appropriate force” part has been forgotten, or at least subsumed into “whatever the President wants to do,” which I don’t think accords with the grammar. And, in any event, it seems to me the executive has claimed the power to drop a JDAM on An-a-Al if he were sitting in a cafe in Des Moines.
Also, what of the other American killed in the attack? Sucks to be him?
“On US soil. Was this wrong?”
No. That was war. It had two sides, both held territory, and were governments. (It was also a rebellion and treason, but that’s not directly relevant to your question.)
The “War on Terror” is not a war by any legal definition I’m aware of. There’s an AUMF, which is hardly the same thing.
The American Civil War had two sides that could surrender. One did.
The “war on terror” has no such thing. It’s as much of a “war” as the “war on drugs.” Which also is never-ending until we stop warring on ourselves.
These are cases of using the word “war” AS A METAPHOR.
When the polity confuses a metaphor with reality, because of political demagoguery, we’re all in deep doo-doo.
Sapient: so you’d be fine with President Sarah Palin having the unilateral right to order the assassination of American citizens? This is, you believe, a standing presidential prerogative?
“You are President, what do you do?”
First, seek an indictment in court. If there’s all this proof, why not? It’s not as if evidence couldn’t be presented under seal, or that all evidence would somehow need to be “state secrets.” (Let’s not get into the nonsensical origin of that legal concept and its subsequent wild abuse.)
Meanwhile, I’m sorry, but I’m unconvinced that this guy is more of danger to me than the local drunk driving population.
Terrorism is a threat. But look at the frigging statistics. It’s, no matter how horrible September 11th was — and I’m a New Yorker, I worked in that building, so I’d ask that no one suggest I take it remotely lightly — terrorism deaths are a statistically insignificant blip in deaths in the U.S. in that year, subsequent years, the previous decades, and there’s no reason to see this changing in the next decade.
And if we give up our — that is, anyone’s — Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and America’s proclaimed ideals of freedom and liberty, what the heck are we fighting for? Do I need to quote Ben Franklin?
This is simply fear and madness.
History will judge us as we judge the Palmer Raids, the Red Scare of 1919-20, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the imprisonment of Americans of Japanese descent simply because of fear and racism.
All surrenders of our values to our fears.
“On US soil. Was this wrong?”
No. That was war. It had two sides, both held territory, and were governments. (It was also a rebellion and treason, but that’s not directly relevant to your question.)
The “War on Terror” is not a war by any legal definition I’m aware of. There’s an AUMF, which is hardly the same thing.
The American Civil War had two sides that could surrender. One did.
The “war on terror” has no such thing. It’s as much of a “war” as the “war on drugs.” Which also is never-ending until we stop warring on ourselves.
These are cases of using the word “war” AS A METAPHOR.
When the polity confuses a metaphor with reality, because of political demagoguery, we’re all in deep doo-doo.
Sapient: so you’d be fine with President Sarah Palin having the unilateral right to order the assassination of American citizens? This is, you believe, a standing presidential prerogative?
“You are President, what do you do?”
First, seek an indictment in court. If there’s all this proof, why not? It’s not as if evidence couldn’t be presented under seal, or that all evidence would somehow need to be “state secrets.” (Let’s not get into the nonsensical origin of that legal concept and its subsequent wild abuse.)
Meanwhile, I’m sorry, but I’m unconvinced that this guy is more of danger to me than the local drunk driving population.
Terrorism is a threat. But look at the frigging statistics. It’s, no matter how horrible September 11th was — and I’m a New Yorker, I worked in that building, so I’d ask that no one suggest I take it remotely lightly — terrorism deaths are a statistically insignificant blip in deaths in the U.S. in that year, subsequent years, the previous decades, and there’s no reason to see this changing in the next decade.
And if we give up our — that is, anyone’s — Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and America’s proclaimed ideals of freedom and liberty, what the heck are we fighting for? Do I need to quote Ben Franklin?
This is simply fear and madness.
History will judge us as we judge the Palmer Raids, the Red Scare of 1919-20, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the imprisonment of Americans of Japanese descent simply because of fear and racism.
All surrenders of our values to our fears.
McKinney – Well, I guess, ignore him? Take defensive, as opposed to offensive, measures? Give him an honest to God chance to turn himself in (which I guess would also have to include a real chance of a fair trial, and not some sort of, uh, other option, as we seem to continue to claim the right to choose)? Denigrate him as some douchebag with a website? Risk life and limb flying stealth helicopters and Navy SEALs into Yemen in an attempt to “capture” him, which there seems to be some sort of precedent for in the case of a more objectionable person?
McKinney – Well, I guess, ignore him? Take defensive, as opposed to offensive, measures? Give him an honest to God chance to turn himself in (which I guess would also have to include a real chance of a fair trial, and not some sort of, uh, other option, as we seem to continue to claim the right to choose)? Denigrate him as some douchebag with a website? Risk life and limb flying stealth helicopters and Navy SEALs into Yemen in an attempt to “capture” him, which there seems to be some sort of precedent for in the case of a more objectionable person?
Supplementary to Ugh’s apposite comment, the AUMF also says:
Not that Congress would bother to try to enforce this.
But are there any other limits on that AUMF that prevent, say, the President from, say, dropping a nuke, or carpet bombing an American city, legally speaking? (A legal hypothetical.)
Supplementary to Ugh’s apposite comment, the AUMF also says:
Not that Congress would bother to try to enforce this.
But are there any other limits on that AUMF that prevent, say, the President from, say, dropping a nuke, or carpet bombing an American city, legally speaking? (A legal hypothetical.)
No. That was war. It had two sides, both held territory, and were governments. (It was also a rebellion and treason, but that’s not directly relevant to your question.)
I agree it was a war, but was it a war-war? You see, the confederacy were states in rebellion, not a recognized government, at least not recognized by the US gov’t. So, rather than a war-war, we were, back then, suppressing a rebellion. It took an army to do it, and four years, and a bunch of other stuff, but it was not a war-war, i.e. a declared state of belligerency between two or more opposing sovereigns.
The late An-a-Al was what? A rebel, an insurgent, a dope dealer, or an active combatant aligned or in league with a non-nation organization seeking to inflict harm on US citizens? The bar you and Greenwald set is so high that it can only be surmounted in theory, or at such high cost as to make a mockery of the principles to be vindicated.
Bombing an active terrorist overseas who happens to be a US citizen–assuming he is, in fact, a terrorist–is not bombing a home in Amarillo or Peoria in which an escaped murderer is believed to have fled. There is a difference and it is material.
No. That was war. It had two sides, both held territory, and were governments. (It was also a rebellion and treason, but that’s not directly relevant to your question.)
I agree it was a war, but was it a war-war? You see, the confederacy were states in rebellion, not a recognized government, at least not recognized by the US gov’t. So, rather than a war-war, we were, back then, suppressing a rebellion. It took an army to do it, and four years, and a bunch of other stuff, but it was not a war-war, i.e. a declared state of belligerency between two or more opposing sovereigns.
The late An-a-Al was what? A rebel, an insurgent, a dope dealer, or an active combatant aligned or in league with a non-nation organization seeking to inflict harm on US citizens? The bar you and Greenwald set is so high that it can only be surmounted in theory, or at such high cost as to make a mockery of the principles to be vindicated.
Bombing an active terrorist overseas who happens to be a US citizen–assuming he is, in fact, a terrorist–is not bombing a home in Amarillo or Peoria in which an escaped murderer is believed to have fled. There is a difference and it is material.
A) How can we “assume”? B) What legal theory or law are you citing? The AUMF?
“You see, the confederacy were states in rebellion, not a recognized government, at least not recognized by the US gov’t.”
Let’s take it as read that I’m more than a bit familiar with Civil War history.
I have no problem charging Anwar al-Awlaki with treason, or any other charge the government wishes to charge him with.
What’s the problem with starting with that?
A) How can we “assume”? B) What legal theory or law are you citing? The AUMF?
“You see, the confederacy were states in rebellion, not a recognized government, at least not recognized by the US gov’t.”
Let’s take it as read that I’m more than a bit familiar with Civil War history.
I have no problem charging Anwar al-Awlaki with treason, or any other charge the government wishes to charge him with.
What’s the problem with starting with that?
Awlaki had years of warning to negotiate a surrender and enjoy due process under the criminal justice system. Remaining at large in a hostile region, he made clear his allegiance to the enemies of the United States and a legitimate military target.
Awlaki had years of warning to negotiate a surrender and enjoy due process under the criminal justice system. Remaining at large in a hostile region, he made clear his allegiance to the enemies of the United States and a legitimate military target.
What’s the problem with starting with that?
And where does that get us? There are at least two ways of looking at this: either (1) our gov’t is lying through its teeth and claiming the right to murder someone who is merely very, very inconvenient or (2) our gov’t is shooting straight and An-a-Al is, in fact, actively engaged in planning and directing terrorist operations in league with other, non-US citizen terrorists. If it’s (1), then we have a bad, bad, bad administration. I’ve conceded the point and so has nearly everyone else I’ve read on the subject. If it’s (2), the response, if I read you correctly remains: indict, arrest, try and convict, all according to law with all implied thereby. Which gets me back to my original post regarding all of those Confederate captives held for the duration without any of the rights you would afford An-a-Al.
I say (a) we handled the Civil War just fine and (b) assuming we’re not being lied to, canceling An-a-Al’ ticket was justified under the doctrine of self-defense.
What I’m trying to get from you, Ugh and anyone else in the Greenwald camp is: assuming the gov’t is telling the truth, is it really your position that An-a-Al should be treated like a domestic criminal suspect? And, if that is true for An-a-Al, why isn’t that true for every member of the Taliban, AQ and their assorted compatriots?
What’s the problem with starting with that?
And where does that get us? There are at least two ways of looking at this: either (1) our gov’t is lying through its teeth and claiming the right to murder someone who is merely very, very inconvenient or (2) our gov’t is shooting straight and An-a-Al is, in fact, actively engaged in planning and directing terrorist operations in league with other, non-US citizen terrorists. If it’s (1), then we have a bad, bad, bad administration. I’ve conceded the point and so has nearly everyone else I’ve read on the subject. If it’s (2), the response, if I read you correctly remains: indict, arrest, try and convict, all according to law with all implied thereby. Which gets me back to my original post regarding all of those Confederate captives held for the duration without any of the rights you would afford An-a-Al.
I say (a) we handled the Civil War just fine and (b) assuming we’re not being lied to, canceling An-a-Al’ ticket was justified under the doctrine of self-defense.
What I’m trying to get from you, Ugh and anyone else in the Greenwald camp is: assuming the gov’t is telling the truth, is it really your position that An-a-Al should be treated like a domestic criminal suspect? And, if that is true for An-a-Al, why isn’t that true for every member of the Taliban, AQ and their assorted compatriots?
Additionally, the Civil War was conducted under General Order 100, the Lieber Code. If we were at war, and somehow the rebellion of U.S. states were at all like some guys hanging out in foreign countries allegedly (I’m willing to stipulate it’s probable) plotting mass murder, or involved in past mass murders, of U.S. citizens), then we presumably would be following similar constraints as during the Civil War.
But I really don’t see how a massive rebellion of U.S. States, claiming secession, is at all like Anwar al-Awlaki hiding in Yemen.
There have always been criminals who flee overseas. There have always been mass murderers and terrorists.
Is the AUMF to be indefinite and unlimited? How is that compatible with proclaimed American values?
Additionally, the Civil War was conducted under General Order 100, the Lieber Code. If we were at war, and somehow the rebellion of U.S. states were at all like some guys hanging out in foreign countries allegedly (I’m willing to stipulate it’s probable) plotting mass murder, or involved in past mass murders, of U.S. citizens), then we presumably would be following similar constraints as during the Civil War.
But I really don’t see how a massive rebellion of U.S. States, claiming secession, is at all like Anwar al-Awlaki hiding in Yemen.
There have always been criminals who flee overseas. There have always been mass murderers and terrorists.
Is the AUMF to be indefinite and unlimited? How is that compatible with proclaimed American values?
either (1) our gov’t is lying through its teeth and claiming the right to murder someone who is merely very, very inconvenient or (2) our gov’t is shooting straight and An-a-Al is, in fact, actively engaged in planning and directing terrorist operations in league with other, non-US citizen terrorists.
Are those the only two options?
Could it be that the US government believes that Awliki is directing terrorist operations but that they have no legitimate evidence to justify that belief?
I mean, people believe things without sound evidence all the time. Governments do as well. For example, if the primary basis of this belief is a torture-induced confession by some guy in Baghram or Gitmo…
The reason we have due process is that it is not enough for the government to really really really believe that someone is guilty. Not all beliefs are correct or even justified. Beliefs must be tested.
either (1) our gov’t is lying through its teeth and claiming the right to murder someone who is merely very, very inconvenient or (2) our gov’t is shooting straight and An-a-Al is, in fact, actively engaged in planning and directing terrorist operations in league with other, non-US citizen terrorists.
Are those the only two options?
Could it be that the US government believes that Awliki is directing terrorist operations but that they have no legitimate evidence to justify that belief?
I mean, people believe things without sound evidence all the time. Governments do as well. For example, if the primary basis of this belief is a torture-induced confession by some guy in Baghram or Gitmo…
The reason we have due process is that it is not enough for the government to really really really believe that someone is guilty. Not all beliefs are correct or even justified. Beliefs must be tested.
Which gets me back to my original post regarding all of those Confederate captives held for the duration without any of the rights you would afford An-a-Al.
Confederate captives had a great many rights under General order 100, the Lieber code, which was the predecessor to the Geneva Conventions.
Which gets me back to my original post regarding all of those Confederate captives held for the duration without any of the rights you would afford An-a-Al.
Confederate captives had a great many rights under General order 100, the Lieber code, which was the predecessor to the Geneva Conventions.
History will judge us as we judge the Palmer Raids, the Red Scare of 1919-20, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the imprisonment of Americans of Japanese descent simply because of fear and racism.
For a point of historical comparison, Luigi Galleani followed an international career as an anarchist agitator and polemicist by moving the to the US in the early 1900’s.
While here, living in bucolic Barre VT, he actively and I do mean actively encouraged Americans and other folks living here to violently overthrow the government and the institutions of capitalism.
By “actively”, I mean among other things publishing explicit instructions for bomb-making, which were in fact used to make actual bombs which were used against actual people.
Under the Alien and Sedition Act, Galleani was deported.
So, we appear to have upped the ante quite a bit since then.
But I really don’t see how a massive rebellion of U.S. States, claiming secession, is at all like Anwar al-Awlaki hiding in Yemen.
In this, size doesn’t matter. A rebel is a traitor, no matter how many there might be. There is no constitutional principle that allows for short cuts if the number of traitors exceeds (fill in the blank with the number of your choice).
There is one over-arching relevant similarity, conceptually, between a Confederate detainee and Al-a-Al: both are traitors.
Being in armed rebellion against one’s own country is treason on steroids, location being a matter of fortuity. Neither the Confederate soldier nor An-a-Al is a member of a sovereign military service in a declared state of hostilities. Your premise seems to be that there must be a legal war (which is not a rebellion whether it is one person or 20 million in rebellion) for the US to be permitted to use lethal force without due process, and that due process must be accorded in all other circumstances. I point out, again, that due process was no part of the treatment of Confederate detainees, or pirates on the high seas. I also point out that the Leiber Code would not pass constitutional muster then, much less now, so that doesn’t get us anywhere.
Focusing for the moment on An-a-Al and only on him, if he is who the gov’t says, isn’t it your position that he is due the full range of constitutional protections and that anything short of according same to him falls short of American law and justice?
History will judge us as we judge the Palmer Raids, the Red Scare of 1919-20, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the imprisonment of Americans of Japanese descent simply because of fear and racism.
For a point of historical comparison, Luigi Galleani followed an international career as an anarchist agitator and polemicist by moving the to the US in the early 1900’s.
While here, living in bucolic Barre VT, he actively and I do mean actively encouraged Americans and other folks living here to violently overthrow the government and the institutions of capitalism.
By “actively”, I mean among other things publishing explicit instructions for bomb-making, which were in fact used to make actual bombs which were used against actual people.
Under the Alien and Sedition Act, Galleani was deported.
So, we appear to have upped the ante quite a bit since then.
But I really don’t see how a massive rebellion of U.S. States, claiming secession, is at all like Anwar al-Awlaki hiding in Yemen.
In this, size doesn’t matter. A rebel is a traitor, no matter how many there might be. There is no constitutional principle that allows for short cuts if the number of traitors exceeds (fill in the blank with the number of your choice).
There is one over-arching relevant similarity, conceptually, between a Confederate detainee and Al-a-Al: both are traitors.
Being in armed rebellion against one’s own country is treason on steroids, location being a matter of fortuity. Neither the Confederate soldier nor An-a-Al is a member of a sovereign military service in a declared state of hostilities. Your premise seems to be that there must be a legal war (which is not a rebellion whether it is one person or 20 million in rebellion) for the US to be permitted to use lethal force without due process, and that due process must be accorded in all other circumstances. I point out, again, that due process was no part of the treatment of Confederate detainees, or pirates on the high seas. I also point out that the Leiber Code would not pass constitutional muster then, much less now, so that doesn’t get us anywhere.
Focusing for the moment on An-a-Al and only on him, if he is who the gov’t says, isn’t it your position that he is due the full range of constitutional protections and that anything short of according same to him falls short of American law and justice?
Could it be that the US government believes that Awliki is directing terrorist operations but that they have no legitimate evidence to justify that belief?
I would put this in the same class as lying through their teeth. Simply believing that someone is up to something rotten, a/k/a suspicion but not proof and certainly not compelling proof, is not enough by a long shot.
But Turb, you’re not addressing the possibility that the gov’t is telling the truth. If it is, what is wrong with taking this particular person out?
Under the Alien and Sedition Act, Galleani was deported.
So, we appear to have upped the ante quite a bit since then.
Apparently so, but this observation begs the question, assuming the gov’t is telling the truth, whether An-a-Al was dealt with correctly (using the term “correctly” somewhat elastically).
Could it be that the US government believes that Awliki is directing terrorist operations but that they have no legitimate evidence to justify that belief?
I would put this in the same class as lying through their teeth. Simply believing that someone is up to something rotten, a/k/a suspicion but not proof and certainly not compelling proof, is not enough by a long shot.
But Turb, you’re not addressing the possibility that the gov’t is telling the truth. If it is, what is wrong with taking this particular person out?
Under the Alien and Sedition Act, Galleani was deported.
So, we appear to have upped the ante quite a bit since then.
Apparently so, but this observation begs the question, assuming the gov’t is telling the truth, whether An-a-Al was dealt with correctly (using the term “correctly” somewhat elastically).
I would put this in the same class as lying through their teeth. Simply believing that someone is up to something rotten, a/k/a suspicion but not proof and certainly not compelling proof, is not enough by a long shot.
Eh, I don’t think it is the same. Information is often compartmentalized. Especially in national security matters. Once your name gets on the ‘bad dude’ list, people in government aren’t going to be asking tons of questions about how and why it is there before agreeing that you should be taken out. They’re going to assume that whoever’s job it was to compile the list had very good reasons.
I mean, if you believe that information elicited by torture is correct and you’ve tortured someone into saying that Awliki is Hitler 2, then we’re not talking suspicion anymore: you have ‘evidence’, at least as you construe it. Now, you couldn’t convince a judge to execute someone based on torture, but that’s my whole point.
But Turb, you’re not addressing the possibility that the gov’t is telling the truth. If it is, what is wrong with taking this particular person out?
There’s nothing wrong with doing so after you convict him of treason. Now, maybe you can explain to me, if the government is telling the truth (like you posit) and you say he’s a traitor, why can’t the government just convict him of treason in court? Does the US government not have any lawyers on staff? Are the courts prejudiced against government claims in matters of national security?
I would put this in the same class as lying through their teeth. Simply believing that someone is up to something rotten, a/k/a suspicion but not proof and certainly not compelling proof, is not enough by a long shot.
Eh, I don’t think it is the same. Information is often compartmentalized. Especially in national security matters. Once your name gets on the ‘bad dude’ list, people in government aren’t going to be asking tons of questions about how and why it is there before agreeing that you should be taken out. They’re going to assume that whoever’s job it was to compile the list had very good reasons.
I mean, if you believe that information elicited by torture is correct and you’ve tortured someone into saying that Awliki is Hitler 2, then we’re not talking suspicion anymore: you have ‘evidence’, at least as you construe it. Now, you couldn’t convince a judge to execute someone based on torture, but that’s my whole point.
But Turb, you’re not addressing the possibility that the gov’t is telling the truth. If it is, what is wrong with taking this particular person out?
There’s nothing wrong with doing so after you convict him of treason. Now, maybe you can explain to me, if the government is telling the truth (like you posit) and you say he’s a traitor, why can’t the government just convict him of treason in court? Does the US government not have any lawyers on staff? Are the courts prejudiced against government claims in matters of national security?
(Emphasis added.)
Oh, totally agree. “Innocent until proven guilty” is far too high a bar.
Less sarcastically, his legitimacy as a military target is sketchy, based on the outline of the circumstances of his assassination. Note that the above should not be constituted as a legal opinion in regards to Operational Law. But I’ll damn well say that I’d not want to answer for giving that order in an impartial court martial.
Um, yes? And also yes, yes, and yes? Terrorism should not in general be viewed through the lens of “military conflict”. It should be viewed as a law enforcement matter. Specific instances may be justified in invoking limited military involvement – even large scale limited involvement – but you’re setting the bar so low as to not even pose a tripping hazard. You’d propose that there be no limits in the degree to which terrorism is treated as acts of war, and to which military SOPs dictate our approach to alleged terrorists, and that the law enforcement framework be cast aside entirely if it’s convenient. Not necessary, but convenient. You’d throw due process right out the window, and make a very public, very blatant, very systematic, and very shameless mockery of our long-held legal traditions.
Your definition of “armed rebellion” is… um… interesting. And, uh, kinda rather irrelevant to how you claim the government can and should be able to deal with accused traitors. There are a few pesky, quaint legal documents mouldering in attics and basements that disagree with your carte blanche interpretation.
(Emphasis added.)
Oh, totally agree. “Innocent until proven guilty” is far too high a bar.
Less sarcastically, his legitimacy as a military target is sketchy, based on the outline of the circumstances of his assassination. Note that the above should not be constituted as a legal opinion in regards to Operational Law. But I’ll damn well say that I’d not want to answer for giving that order in an impartial court martial.
Um, yes? And also yes, yes, and yes? Terrorism should not in general be viewed through the lens of “military conflict”. It should be viewed as a law enforcement matter. Specific instances may be justified in invoking limited military involvement – even large scale limited involvement – but you’re setting the bar so low as to not even pose a tripping hazard. You’d propose that there be no limits in the degree to which terrorism is treated as acts of war, and to which military SOPs dictate our approach to alleged terrorists, and that the law enforcement framework be cast aside entirely if it’s convenient. Not necessary, but convenient. You’d throw due process right out the window, and make a very public, very blatant, very systematic, and very shameless mockery of our long-held legal traditions.
Your definition of “armed rebellion” is… um… interesting. And, uh, kinda rather irrelevant to how you claim the government can and should be able to deal with accused traitors. There are a few pesky, quaint legal documents mouldering in attics and basements that disagree with your carte blanche interpretation.
(Also: no, armed rebellion isn’t “treason on steroids”, as far as US law is concerned. It’s pretty much bog-standard, run-of-the-mill treason. Nothing special as far as treason goes – not the lowest form of treason possible, but very vanilla none the less. You pretty much need to be at least involved in, even if not perforce actively engaged in, armed rebellion just to meet the legal definition.)
(Also: no, armed rebellion isn’t “treason on steroids”, as far as US law is concerned. It’s pretty much bog-standard, run-of-the-mill treason. Nothing special as far as treason goes – not the lowest form of treason possible, but very vanilla none the less. You pretty much need to be at least involved in, even if not perforce actively engaged in, armed rebellion just to meet the legal definition.)
nice to see you Gary.
nice to see you Gary.
For the record, is actually the second American citizen killed by drone.
But it was just an oopsie!
Mattt:
He did? Which court indicted him?
Besides the court of public opinion.
Let’s also recall some names: Richard Jewell. Steven J. Hatfill. Wen Ho Lee.
We simply are to, forever more, trust that the Executive will always be right in determining who is guilty, in secret?
Is that the principle being defended?
These are principles at stake. This is not a matter of the details of the specific case being key.
It’s simply this: do we want a state in which the Executive has the right to determine, with no checks or balances, in a secret Star Chamber, which individuals should be killed?
Is everyone comfy with all future imaginable Presidents having that power?
McK:
I think we should start there, and then discuss practicalities and options.
I’ll go with Steve Benen’s questions:
Meanwhile, there are plenty of experts arguing al-Awaki was pretty much just a propagandist. Is that right? Perhaps not. But wouldn’t it be wacky if there were a trial to determine that? Or an indictment?
That’s an interesting question, but without beginning to go fully into it, I’d say there’s a crucial distinction between U.S. forces invading a country, and fighting an undeclared war, and simply bombing a country in which U.S. military forces aren’t already fighting.
Without getting into pro/con arguments on the former, the two do differ that way.
Moreover… too many links. New comment.
For the record, is actually the second American citizen killed by drone.
But it was just an oopsie!
Mattt:
He did? Which court indicted him?
Besides the court of public opinion.
Let’s also recall some names: Richard Jewell. Steven J. Hatfill. Wen Ho Lee.
We simply are to, forever more, trust that the Executive will always be right in determining who is guilty, in secret?
Is that the principle being defended?
These are principles at stake. This is not a matter of the details of the specific case being key.
It’s simply this: do we want a state in which the Executive has the right to determine, with no checks or balances, in a secret Star Chamber, which individuals should be killed?
Is everyone comfy with all future imaginable Presidents having that power?
McK:
I think we should start there, and then discuss practicalities and options.
I’ll go with Steve Benen’s questions:
Meanwhile, there are plenty of experts arguing al-Awaki was pretty much just a propagandist. Is that right? Perhaps not. But wouldn’t it be wacky if there were a trial to determine that? Or an indictment?
That’s an interesting question, but without beginning to go fully into it, I’d say there’s a crucial distinction between U.S. forces invading a country, and fighting an undeclared war, and simply bombing a country in which U.S. military forces aren’t already fighting.
Without getting into pro/con arguments on the former, the two do differ that way.
Moreover… too many links. New comment.
Continuing on McK’s last query: as Spencer Ackerman points out:
And: is the AUMF also retroactive? If you had nothing whatever to do with September 11th, the AUMF covers making war on you with what language?
No one has claimed al-Awlaki had anything to do with September 11th.
Continuing on McK’s last query: as Spencer Ackerman points out:
And: is the AUMF also retroactive? If you had nothing whatever to do with September 11th, the AUMF covers making war on you with what language?
No one has claimed al-Awlaki had anything to do with September 11th.
There’s nothing wrong with doing so after you convict him of treason. . . you say he’s a traitor, why can’t the government just convict him of treason in court?
Do we appoint a lawyer for him? Does the lawyer get to see the gov’t’s file, including current intelligence data?
There is a bright line here, under present circumstances: either the constitution applies fully, as if he were a domestic criminal, or it does not apply at all. I infer your view is that An-a-Al gets the full constitutional ride and if the gov’t cannot convict beyond a reasonable doubt and if the gov’t isn’t willing to open its currently intelligence assets to public view, then An-a-Al gets to continue in business.
The WoT has not been fought by any rules other than, AFAICT, an attempt to avoid collateral damage and, post-Obama, no more torture. The effect, given the lack of foreign-launched attacks on US soil, has been salutary. Intuitively, I attribute this to erring significantly on the side of aggressiveness.
But if I were to imagine a different world, one in which a US president permitted only law enforcement, and then only in strict accordance with the constitution, to apprehend and prosecute AQ, the Taliban etc, I would also imagine a much higher US civilian body count. And then I would imagine that president being turned out of offic and his views falling into permanent disrepair.
There’s nothing wrong with doing so after you convict him of treason. . . you say he’s a traitor, why can’t the government just convict him of treason in court?
Do we appoint a lawyer for him? Does the lawyer get to see the gov’t’s file, including current intelligence data?
There is a bright line here, under present circumstances: either the constitution applies fully, as if he were a domestic criminal, or it does not apply at all. I infer your view is that An-a-Al gets the full constitutional ride and if the gov’t cannot convict beyond a reasonable doubt and if the gov’t isn’t willing to open its currently intelligence assets to public view, then An-a-Al gets to continue in business.
The WoT has not been fought by any rules other than, AFAICT, an attempt to avoid collateral damage and, post-Obama, no more torture. The effect, given the lack of foreign-launched attacks on US soil, has been salutary. Intuitively, I attribute this to erring significantly on the side of aggressiveness.
But if I were to imagine a different world, one in which a US president permitted only law enforcement, and then only in strict accordance with the constitution, to apprehend and prosecute AQ, the Taliban etc, I would also imagine a much higher US civilian body count. And then I would imagine that president being turned out of offic and his views falling into permanent disrepair.
That’s an interesting question, but without beginning to go fully into it, I’d say there’s a crucial distinction between U.S. forces invading a country, and fighting an undeclared war, and simply bombing a country in which U.S. military forces aren’t already fighting.
This is true, and I had considered trying to address this in my above comment before giving up and eliding it. Though I don’t think I elided it entirely. Though I may have. But in any case, Gary evokes to the crucial distinctions well enough. The overriding point is that we chose to militarily invade and overthrow the government of Afghanistan (our refusal to recognize its legitimacy being not wholly material), and these were forces resisting said military operation. In that capacity, they were unequivocally military targets (with the protections due them under the relevant laws of war). In their capacity as parties to acts of terrorism… not so much.
That’s an interesting question, but without beginning to go fully into it, I’d say there’s a crucial distinction between U.S. forces invading a country, and fighting an undeclared war, and simply bombing a country in which U.S. military forces aren’t already fighting.
This is true, and I had considered trying to address this in my above comment before giving up and eliding it. Though I don’t think I elided it entirely. Though I may have. But in any case, Gary evokes to the crucial distinctions well enough. The overriding point is that we chose to militarily invade and overthrow the government of Afghanistan (our refusal to recognize its legitimacy being not wholly material), and these were forces resisting said military operation. In that capacity, they were unequivocally military targets (with the protections due them under the relevant laws of war). In their capacity as parties to acts of terrorism… not so much.
Do we appoint a lawyer for him? Does the lawyer get to see the gov’t’s file, including current intelligence data?
Excellent point! If only someone had considered the possibility of court cases involving classified information and had drafted laws regarding their execution! Tragically for all of us, no had ever considered this previously. Oh, woe is us…
The WoT has not been fought by any rules other than, AFAICT, an attempt to avoid collateral damage and, post-Obama, no more torture. The effect, given the lack of foreign-launched attacks on US soil, has been salutary. Intuitively, I attribute this to erring significantly on the side of aggressiveness.
Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Do we appoint a lawyer for him? Does the lawyer get to see the gov’t’s file, including current intelligence data?
Excellent point! If only someone had considered the possibility of court cases involving classified information and had drafted laws regarding their execution! Tragically for all of us, no had ever considered this previously. Oh, woe is us…
The WoT has not been fought by any rules other than, AFAICT, an attempt to avoid collateral damage and, post-Obama, no more torture. The effect, given the lack of foreign-launched attacks on US soil, has been salutary. Intuitively, I attribute this to erring significantly on the side of aggressiveness.
Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Outside armed conflict, the relevant standard is absolute necessity.
Actually, this is BS. The traditional common law standard for the use of lethal force in defense of oneself or of another is a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.
Gary, the problem with touting Ackerman is that the criticism he levels is a failure to lay out sufficient evidence of guilt.
My question is: suppose there is sufficient evidence of ongoing terrorist activity? The answer, it seems, is that it doesn’t matter. Guilty as sin, we still have to arrest and try someone in the US with full constitutional trimmings.
Good thing we didn’t apply that rule to the South.
It should be viewed as a law enforcement matter.
Excellent. And which agency should we have sent, if any, into Afghanistan post 9-11? And to whom would they have applied for search warrants? And should trial have been local, a jury of their peers, or could we extradite without a treaty?
Like I said earlier, this sets the bar so high the system can’t defend itself.
Outside armed conflict, the relevant standard is absolute necessity.
Actually, this is BS. The traditional common law standard for the use of lethal force in defense of oneself or of another is a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.
Gary, the problem with touting Ackerman is that the criticism he levels is a failure to lay out sufficient evidence of guilt.
My question is: suppose there is sufficient evidence of ongoing terrorist activity? The answer, it seems, is that it doesn’t matter. Guilty as sin, we still have to arrest and try someone in the US with full constitutional trimmings.
Good thing we didn’t apply that rule to the South.
It should be viewed as a law enforcement matter.
Excellent. And which agency should we have sent, if any, into Afghanistan post 9-11? And to whom would they have applied for search warrants? And should trial have been local, a jury of their peers, or could we extradite without a treaty?
Like I said earlier, this sets the bar so high the system can’t defend itself.
Not quite.
What exactly constitutes “the full range of constitutional protections” is highly subject to debate. That’s part of this discussion.
But I’m not here to make a case to define those.
I do take the position that we apply constitutional protections to all people, because that’s what, you know, the Constitution says. I’m not interested at present in nitty-gritty arguments about procedure.
I can’t accept that the POTUS simply has the power to unilaterally decide, in secret, to kill whomever it thinks violates some secret standard, at well.
McKinney, you believe in small government. One of the beliefs inherent to that — correct me if I have this wrong, please — is that government often gets things wrong.
Does that fly out the window when it comes to minor things like executions without trial?
Yes. And we have procedures for dealing with intelligence data in court. It’s presented under seal, and data isn’t operational security, or “methods and means.” It simply would be the government being able to make a case.
Are you asserting that the evidence against him is so thin that the government couldn’t make a case without revealing, say, NSA eavesdropping methods.
And the principle then would be that, again, we must simply trust the executive to get it right?
“… and if the gov’t isn’t willing to open its currently intelligence assets to public view….”
This is a straw man argument. Can you give a cite the government is making such a claim, or has ever made this claim, if this is the case?
You’re simply hypothesizing that a trial couldn’t be possible, and couldn’t convict Anwar al-Awlaki.
We could have tested that.
He didn’t even get a “military commission.” Just Sekrit Memos within the executive.
How can that be something we simply accept as presidential prerogative? The government can’t be trusted to administer EPA laws, or registering guns, or mandate health insurance, but the Executive Branch can be trusted to, on its own, kill people because… why?
“…then An-a-Al gets to continue in business.”
Worst case, yes. There are all sorts of people around the world with hostile intentions towards Americans. I’m still alive. You’re still alive.
2,996 people died on September 11th.
I don’t have an exact count handy of how many people have died in the U.S. since then due to Islamist extremist violence, but it’s well under a hundred people, is it not?
Why are you so scared of this guy? Or anyone else in Yemen? So frightened that we have to toss out the Constitution to protect ourselves from this grave grave threat that we must spend hundreds of billions of dollars on, which has killed… a few dozen people in this country in the past just under ten years?
This is madness.
Not quite.
What exactly constitutes “the full range of constitutional protections” is highly subject to debate. That’s part of this discussion.
But I’m not here to make a case to define those.
I do take the position that we apply constitutional protections to all people, because that’s what, you know, the Constitution says. I’m not interested at present in nitty-gritty arguments about procedure.
I can’t accept that the POTUS simply has the power to unilaterally decide, in secret, to kill whomever it thinks violates some secret standard, at well.
McKinney, you believe in small government. One of the beliefs inherent to that — correct me if I have this wrong, please — is that government often gets things wrong.
Does that fly out the window when it comes to minor things like executions without trial?
Yes. And we have procedures for dealing with intelligence data in court. It’s presented under seal, and data isn’t operational security, or “methods and means.” It simply would be the government being able to make a case.
Are you asserting that the evidence against him is so thin that the government couldn’t make a case without revealing, say, NSA eavesdropping methods.
And the principle then would be that, again, we must simply trust the executive to get it right?
“… and if the gov’t isn’t willing to open its currently intelligence assets to public view….”
This is a straw man argument. Can you give a cite the government is making such a claim, or has ever made this claim, if this is the case?
You’re simply hypothesizing that a trial couldn’t be possible, and couldn’t convict Anwar al-Awlaki.
We could have tested that.
He didn’t even get a “military commission.” Just Sekrit Memos within the executive.
How can that be something we simply accept as presidential prerogative? The government can’t be trusted to administer EPA laws, or registering guns, or mandate health insurance, but the Executive Branch can be trusted to, on its own, kill people because… why?
“…then An-a-Al gets to continue in business.”
Worst case, yes. There are all sorts of people around the world with hostile intentions towards Americans. I’m still alive. You’re still alive.
2,996 people died on September 11th.
I don’t have an exact count handy of how many people have died in the U.S. since then due to Islamist extremist violence, but it’s well under a hundred people, is it not?
Why are you so scared of this guy? Or anyone else in Yemen? So frightened that we have to toss out the Constitution to protect ourselves from this grave grave threat that we must spend hundreds of billions of dollars on, which has killed… a few dozen people in this country in the past just under ten years?
This is madness.
Let’s imagine, for the sake of discussion, that the government indicted Anwar al-Awlaki. Then what happens?
Option 1: try him in absentia. With or without a court-appointed counsel, who is probably not in a position to consult with his client. Seems like that’s just as unconstitutional — but perhaps an expert can explain otherwise.
Option 2: demand his extradition. Small problem: there is no government with both the authority and the ability to extradite him. Even before Yemen started lapsing into full blown civil war.
Option 3: go arrest him, to bring him back for trial. It might be possible to do that without a full-scale invasion of Yemen — but I wouldn’t count on it. After the raid that got bin Laden, I doubt very much that al-Awlaki’s security would be weak enough for anything less to get thru.
Option 4: having indicted him, procede to (effectively) do nothing.
Anybody want to weigh in on which option they prefer? Or, better yet, present one that I haven’t thought of?
Let’s imagine, for the sake of discussion, that the government indicted Anwar al-Awlaki. Then what happens?
Option 1: try him in absentia. With or without a court-appointed counsel, who is probably not in a position to consult with his client. Seems like that’s just as unconstitutional — but perhaps an expert can explain otherwise.
Option 2: demand his extradition. Small problem: there is no government with both the authority and the ability to extradite him. Even before Yemen started lapsing into full blown civil war.
Option 3: go arrest him, to bring him back for trial. It might be possible to do that without a full-scale invasion of Yemen — but I wouldn’t count on it. After the raid that got bin Laden, I doubt very much that al-Awlaki’s security would be weak enough for anything less to get thru.
Option 4: having indicted him, procede to (effectively) do nothing.
Anybody want to weigh in on which option they prefer? Or, better yet, present one that I haven’t thought of?
FWIW, I’ve just read all 83 pages of the District Court’s opinion dismissing Awlaki’s father’s suit in 2010 to attempt to stop this.
The decision, as anyone can read, is 100% dismissal for lack of standing.
But there are interesting aspects in the early parts of the opinion:
One of many reasons the suit lacked standing, interesting, is that “Plaintiff cannot show that a parent suffers an injury in fact if his adult child is threatened with a future extrajudicial killing.”
Whether the fact that the extrajudicial killing has finally taken place means the suit can be launched again, I don’t know, though the plaintiff would have to overcome the hurdle of the political question doctrine preventing the case from being heard, and I wouldn’t be at all optimistic about that.
FWIW, I’ve just read all 83 pages of the District Court’s opinion dismissing Awlaki’s father’s suit in 2010 to attempt to stop this.
The decision, as anyone can read, is 100% dismissal for lack of standing.
But there are interesting aspects in the early parts of the opinion:
One of many reasons the suit lacked standing, interesting, is that “Plaintiff cannot show that a parent suffers an injury in fact if his adult child is threatened with a future extrajudicial killing.”
Whether the fact that the extrajudicial killing has finally taken place means the suit can be launched again, I don’t know, though the plaintiff would have to overcome the hurdle of the political question doctrine preventing the case from being heard, and I wouldn’t be at all optimistic about that.
“What is your evidence that An-a-Al was unarmed? Or that the sole reason for killing him was an anti-US attitude?”
What Ugh said. I don’t have any evidence he was armed, but I’m not the one blowing people up with flying robots, so my lack of evidence is somewhat less important here.
I don’t think there is any particular reason to trust any American administration when it comes to foreign policy issues. Maybe they had good reasons for killing Anwar al-Awlaki, but their word on this doesn’t mean much.
“I think you are wrong, Donald.”
About what?
“What is your evidence that An-a-Al was unarmed? Or that the sole reason for killing him was an anti-US attitude?”
What Ugh said. I don’t have any evidence he was armed, but I’m not the one blowing people up with flying robots, so my lack of evidence is somewhat less important here.
I don’t think there is any particular reason to trust any American administration when it comes to foreign policy issues. Maybe they had good reasons for killing Anwar al-Awlaki, but their word on this doesn’t mean much.
“I think you are wrong, Donald.”
About what?
Meanwhile, what of Samir Khan?
He wasn’t on the government’s kill list.
There was a grand jury investigation that apparently found no evidence of any act by him beyond: blogging.
So American citizen Samir Khan was killed because he was standing within range of Awlaki, and probably shared his opinions?
Why, what could possibly be wrong with that? How could this precedent possibly be misused in future?
Meanwhile, what of Samir Khan?
He wasn’t on the government’s kill list.
There was a grand jury investigation that apparently found no evidence of any act by him beyond: blogging.
So American citizen Samir Khan was killed because he was standing within range of Awlaki, and probably shared his opinions?
Why, what could possibly be wrong with that? How could this precedent possibly be misused in future?
Robert Farley at LGM links to Robert Chesney in addition to Greenwald and Spencer Ackerman and also writes this, which rings true with me.
All that said, my “lack strong opinions” reflects a belief that the killing of al-Awaki is not the most troubling state sanctioned killing of the last two weeks; the process that killed Troy Davis is to my mind more likely to be replicated and more likely to kill innocent people than the process that led to the death of al-Awaki. The state is the state; it kills when it makes road policy, when it makes health policy, and when it rolls out of bed in the morning. The killing of al-Awaki doesn’t represent the crossing of some sort of Rubicon, rather an assessment of the cost of legal inconvenience, and this is obviously nothing new. But then this simply represents an assessment of the gravity of the killing, not of its justice.
Robert Farley at LGM links to Robert Chesney in addition to Greenwald and Spencer Ackerman and also writes this, which rings true with me.
All that said, my “lack strong opinions” reflects a belief that the killing of al-Awaki is not the most troubling state sanctioned killing of the last two weeks; the process that killed Troy Davis is to my mind more likely to be replicated and more likely to kill innocent people than the process that led to the death of al-Awaki. The state is the state; it kills when it makes road policy, when it makes health policy, and when it rolls out of bed in the morning. The killing of al-Awaki doesn’t represent the crossing of some sort of Rubicon, rather an assessment of the cost of legal inconvenience, and this is obviously nothing new. But then this simply represents an assessment of the gravity of the killing, not of its justice.
Whoops, I see gary already posted the Ackerman link. Sorry for the reduplication.
Whoops, I see gary already posted the Ackerman link. Sorry for the reduplication.
I’m of the opinion that Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have done greater damage to the United States as a nation than al-Awlaki ever threatened, much less carried out.
May I assume that, were I somehow to become President, McTex would support me in hitting Murdoch’s compound with a Predator ?
I’m of the opinion that Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have done greater damage to the United States as a nation than al-Awlaki ever threatened, much less carried out.
May I assume that, were I somehow to become President, McTex would support me in hitting Murdoch’s compound with a Predator ?
The decision, as anyone can read, is 100% dismissal for lack of standing.
Because, as anyone who can read knows, once something is dismissed for lack of standing (100%), the court doesn’t reach the merits. Done.
The decision, as anyone can read, is 100% dismissal for lack of standing.
Because, as anyone who can read knows, once something is dismissed for lack of standing (100%), the court doesn’t reach the merits. Done.
Exactly. Are we supposed to be disagreeing about this? 🙂
Exactly. Are we supposed to be disagreeing about this? 🙂
It’s rather pointless to discuss the legalities of this under the Constitution, when the Constitutional branches of government (the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary) are right there to do it for us. One case was brought and it was dismissed on procedural grounds. That’s what usually happens when there’s a judicial challenge to an Executive act of war – the judiciary chooses to find a way to defer to the Executive.
Gary, you ask whether I would support a President Sarah PalinS “having the unilateral right to order the assassination of American citizens”. The answer is NO. First, I would not support Sarah Palin for President, period. Second, I would not support an assassination.
But if Congress had passed a law such as the AUMF, and if there an American citizen made public statements that he was a member of the very organized group that provoked the September 11 attacks, and if Sarah Palin ordered a strike against that person, I’d have to be okay with that. Because that person would be a declared enemy of our country.
And Gary, yes, we’re agreed on the standing issue, but that means that the rest of the opinion is dictum (or in layman’s terms, bloviating).
But it IS nice to see you back.
It’s rather pointless to discuss the legalities of this under the Constitution, when the Constitutional branches of government (the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary) are right there to do it for us. One case was brought and it was dismissed on procedural grounds. That’s what usually happens when there’s a judicial challenge to an Executive act of war – the judiciary chooses to find a way to defer to the Executive.
Gary, you ask whether I would support a President Sarah PalinS “having the unilateral right to order the assassination of American citizens”. The answer is NO. First, I would not support Sarah Palin for President, period. Second, I would not support an assassination.
But if Congress had passed a law such as the AUMF, and if there an American citizen made public statements that he was a member of the very organized group that provoked the September 11 attacks, and if Sarah Palin ordered a strike against that person, I’d have to be okay with that. Because that person would be a declared enemy of our country.
And Gary, yes, we’re agreed on the standing issue, but that means that the rest of the opinion is dictum (or in layman’s terms, bloviating).
But it IS nice to see you back.
But I really don’t see how a massive rebellion of U.S. States, claiming secession, is at all like Anwar al-Awlaki hiding in Yemen.
There have always been criminals who flee overseas. There have always been mass murderers and terrorists.
Anwar al-Awlaki wasn’t “hiding,” he had built a fortress in a lawless country where he could continue to plot against the US from where he was located. He wasn’t a criminal who “fled”. He was a person involved in an ongoing threat. Your observation that there have “always been” mass murderers and terrorists doesn’t really illuminate the situation when you don’t tell what was done about the mass murderers and terrorists. They weren’t allowed to just continue to mass murder and terrorize until someone could break through their ranks of armed guards with an arrest warrant. That’s insane.
russell, the situations between Galleani and al-Awlaki legally don’t resemble each other at all. (Galleani in the US; al-Awlaki in Yemen. No war against Galleani’s people; war against al-Awlaki’s people. Galleani deported after fomenting; al-Awlaki in a fortress in Yemen actively fomenting. Galleani not a citizen; al-Awlaki a citizen. Etc.)
But I really don’t see how a massive rebellion of U.S. States, claiming secession, is at all like Anwar al-Awlaki hiding in Yemen.
There have always been criminals who flee overseas. There have always been mass murderers and terrorists.
Anwar al-Awlaki wasn’t “hiding,” he had built a fortress in a lawless country where he could continue to plot against the US from where he was located. He wasn’t a criminal who “fled”. He was a person involved in an ongoing threat. Your observation that there have “always been” mass murderers and terrorists doesn’t really illuminate the situation when you don’t tell what was done about the mass murderers and terrorists. They weren’t allowed to just continue to mass murder and terrorize until someone could break through their ranks of armed guards with an arrest warrant. That’s insane.
russell, the situations between Galleani and al-Awlaki legally don’t resemble each other at all. (Galleani in the US; al-Awlaki in Yemen. No war against Galleani’s people; war against al-Awlaki’s people. Galleani deported after fomenting; al-Awlaki in a fortress in Yemen actively fomenting. Galleani not a citizen; al-Awlaki a citizen. Etc.)
sapient: Thanks for the welcome back, and to all.
The ones in other countries are who we’re discussing, and what we’ve always done is either seek extradition, or if that isn’t possible, we go on with life.
This isn’t secret info. But now I’ve told you what we’ve done.
Really? What have we done, do you think, with murderers who have fled to countries we don’t have extradition treaties with?
Oh, wait. We’re talking about what we’ve done with convicted criminals.
Wait, he wasn’t a criminal? I guess you’re right: no court has convicted him. Okay.
He didn’t flee the U.S.? Odd.
Maybe it was a vacation, not fleeing before arrest.
But you’re correct that sometimes we treat mass-murdering terrorists different. Heard of Luis Posada Carriles?
But in general, terrorists have commonly done their best to get to countries without extradition treaties.
There are quite a few of those countries:
Also, Taiwan, but it’s currently under negotiation.
And, of course, the countries we have no diplomatic relations with at all: Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, North Korea.
The list of fugitive killers who have fled the U.S. is vast.
But we haven’t bombed a single one before now. No matter how many people they killed. Do I need to start listing names?
When Nixon’s government thought there would be revolution, they still didn’t seek out any of the domestic bombers who fled abroad to countries without extradition with the U.S.
We just lived with it.
Why are people to willing to be terrorized by terrorists?
Just stop being so damned afraid, folks.
Do you have a cite on that “fortress”? I’d like to read more about it, please, just out of curiosity.
What, al-Awlaki time traveled into the past to join al Qaeda in Afghanistan?
Then had lunch at the Pentagon?
Even according to RICO, or any conspiracy law I’m aware of (IANAL; anyone with a cite is welcome to correct my ignorance) in the U.S., you don’t become part of a criminal conspiracy (the 9/11 attacks) by saying after the fact that you approve.
And what “very organized group” did al-Awlaki belong to? Are you claiming that al Qaeda is, today, a single organization? A “very organized group”?
Have you consulted all the statements from the Administration explaining how al Qaeda is largely destroyed? How it’s capable of little more than propaganda now? Are you suggesting that the various groups that like to use the name “al Qaeda” are all one and the same, organized together?
The facts don’t support the latter at all. No reputable expert suggests such a thing.
And now we’re killing people for “public statements”?
Hey, why not?
What do you think of the killing of Samir Khan? Also justified?
sapient: Thanks for the welcome back, and to all.
The ones in other countries are who we’re discussing, and what we’ve always done is either seek extradition, or if that isn’t possible, we go on with life.
This isn’t secret info. But now I’ve told you what we’ve done.
Really? What have we done, do you think, with murderers who have fled to countries we don’t have extradition treaties with?
Oh, wait. We’re talking about what we’ve done with convicted criminals.
Wait, he wasn’t a criminal? I guess you’re right: no court has convicted him. Okay.
He didn’t flee the U.S.? Odd.
Maybe it was a vacation, not fleeing before arrest.
But you’re correct that sometimes we treat mass-murdering terrorists different. Heard of Luis Posada Carriles?
But in general, terrorists have commonly done their best to get to countries without extradition treaties.
There are quite a few of those countries:
Also, Taiwan, but it’s currently under negotiation.
And, of course, the countries we have no diplomatic relations with at all: Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, North Korea.
The list of fugitive killers who have fled the U.S. is vast.
But we haven’t bombed a single one before now. No matter how many people they killed. Do I need to start listing names?
When Nixon’s government thought there would be revolution, they still didn’t seek out any of the domestic bombers who fled abroad to countries without extradition with the U.S.
We just lived with it.
Why are people to willing to be terrorized by terrorists?
Just stop being so damned afraid, folks.
Do you have a cite on that “fortress”? I’d like to read more about it, please, just out of curiosity.
What, al-Awlaki time traveled into the past to join al Qaeda in Afghanistan?
Then had lunch at the Pentagon?
Even according to RICO, or any conspiracy law I’m aware of (IANAL; anyone with a cite is welcome to correct my ignorance) in the U.S., you don’t become part of a criminal conspiracy (the 9/11 attacks) by saying after the fact that you approve.
And what “very organized group” did al-Awlaki belong to? Are you claiming that al Qaeda is, today, a single organization? A “very organized group”?
Have you consulted all the statements from the Administration explaining how al Qaeda is largely destroyed? How it’s capable of little more than propaganda now? Are you suggesting that the various groups that like to use the name “al Qaeda” are all one and the same, organized together?
The facts don’t support the latter at all. No reputable expert suggests such a thing.
And now we’re killing people for “public statements”?
Hey, why not?
What do you think of the killing of Samir Khan? Also justified?
Gary,
Welcome home. You are right with your argument in this post and in the thread. Targeting citizens without trial is hard to reconcile with “I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”
Especially given that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Gary,
Welcome home. You are right with your argument in this post and in the thread. Targeting citizens without trial is hard to reconcile with “I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”
Especially given that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
And what “very organized group” did al-Awlaki belong to? Are you claiming that al Qaeda is, today, a single organization? A “very organized group”?
I took “the very organized group” to mean “the one particular organized group” rather than “the extremely organized group”. Not that this makes the statement any less ridiculous, but it does become a different kind of ridiculousness…
And what “very organized group” did al-Awlaki belong to? Are you claiming that al Qaeda is, today, a single organization? A “very organized group”?
I took “the very organized group” to mean “the one particular organized group” rather than “the extremely organized group”. Not that this makes the statement any less ridiculous, but it does become a different kind of ridiculousness…
Apparently so, but this observation begs the question, assuming the gov’t is telling the truth, whether An-a-Al was dealt with correctly (using the term “correctly” somewhat elastically).
My post was in response to the mention of the Alien and Sedition Acts. My point was to compare and contrast deporting someone who was very dangerous, and blowing them up.
Times change, apparently.
But I don’t mind answering the question directly.
Al-Awlaki was not handled correctly.
If you want to use the rule of preventing imminent danger, it behooves you to at least demonstrate the imminent danger. Encouraging other people and possibly being involved in planning past events that didn’t actually kill anyone do not constitute imminent danger.
With respect, the comparison between Al Awlaki and the Confederate States is specious. The CSA was in all respects a nation. It had a formal government, which conducted relations with other nations. It fielded an organized army, which fought in uniform under a clear and recognizable command. We did not recognize it. That does not change its nature.
The rules of war do not apply here. Not unless you want to define “battlefield” as the entire freaking planet, and “enemy soldier” as anybody we think might be working, or even just intending, to harm us.
There are not enough drones in the world to cover that population. Thankfully.
There is a good argument to be made that our current institutions and laws are not well equipped for dealing with the phenomenon of terrorism. I’m not sure I buy that argument, but it is a reasonable position.
But the solution to that is not to adopt a policy that we can kill anybody we like, anywhere in the world, on the say-so of the executive, with no meaningful review or recourse. That is the situation we have now, and it should be *extremely obvious* to anyone with any historical awareness and a lick of sense that it’s a very, very, very bad idea.
We have established a very powerful precedent, and in my opinion it is highly likely to bite us on the ass. The US can generally get away with doing whatever the hell we like, because we sort of follow the rules, and we are the biggest gorilla in the room. Since 9/11 (at least) we have been eroding the first. The second is not that meaningful in a world where 19 people with box cutters can come damned close to throwing the nation into chaos.
Al Awlaki should have been dealt with according to the laws we have on the books. If that increases our risk, then that’s the price we pay for being a nation of laws.
There is no perfect safety, and sending drones around the world to blow people up will not change that fact.
Apparently so, but this observation begs the question, assuming the gov’t is telling the truth, whether An-a-Al was dealt with correctly (using the term “correctly” somewhat elastically).
My post was in response to the mention of the Alien and Sedition Acts. My point was to compare and contrast deporting someone who was very dangerous, and blowing them up.
Times change, apparently.
But I don’t mind answering the question directly.
Al-Awlaki was not handled correctly.
If you want to use the rule of preventing imminent danger, it behooves you to at least demonstrate the imminent danger. Encouraging other people and possibly being involved in planning past events that didn’t actually kill anyone do not constitute imminent danger.
With respect, the comparison between Al Awlaki and the Confederate States is specious. The CSA was in all respects a nation. It had a formal government, which conducted relations with other nations. It fielded an organized army, which fought in uniform under a clear and recognizable command. We did not recognize it. That does not change its nature.
The rules of war do not apply here. Not unless you want to define “battlefield” as the entire freaking planet, and “enemy soldier” as anybody we think might be working, or even just intending, to harm us.
There are not enough drones in the world to cover that population. Thankfully.
There is a good argument to be made that our current institutions and laws are not well equipped for dealing with the phenomenon of terrorism. I’m not sure I buy that argument, but it is a reasonable position.
But the solution to that is not to adopt a policy that we can kill anybody we like, anywhere in the world, on the say-so of the executive, with no meaningful review or recourse. That is the situation we have now, and it should be *extremely obvious* to anyone with any historical awareness and a lick of sense that it’s a very, very, very bad idea.
We have established a very powerful precedent, and in my opinion it is highly likely to bite us on the ass. The US can generally get away with doing whatever the hell we like, because we sort of follow the rules, and we are the biggest gorilla in the room. Since 9/11 (at least) we have been eroding the first. The second is not that meaningful in a world where 19 people with box cutters can come damned close to throwing the nation into chaos.
Al Awlaki should have been dealt with according to the laws we have on the books. If that increases our risk, then that’s the price we pay for being a nation of laws.
There is no perfect safety, and sending drones around the world to blow people up will not change that fact.
Interestingly, Scott Atran says (or seems to, Robert Wright keeps interrupting him) here at around 20:30, that he thought Awlaki should have been killed. I say interestingly because I believe that he’s been cited here several times.
Interestingly, Scott Atran says (or seems to, Robert Wright keeps interrupting him) here at around 20:30, that he thought Awlaki should have been killed. I say interestingly because I believe that he’s been cited here several times.
Scott Atran has been cited by me a number of times, because he’s an anthropologist who is an expert on political violence and political extremism and the psychology of terrorists (in his view they are not mentally disturbed.) I generally respect his views and would listen to what he has to say on this subject, but unless he has answers for the issues that Gary raises here I wouldn’t agree with him. (I haven’t listened to the conversation though. No time today.)
Scott Atran has been cited by me a number of times, because he’s an anthropologist who is an expert on political violence and political extremism and the psychology of terrorists (in his view they are not mentally disturbed.) I generally respect his views and would listen to what he has to say on this subject, but unless he has answers for the issues that Gary raises here I wouldn’t agree with him. (I haven’t listened to the conversation though. No time today.)
Here is a thought experiment.
A while back, the IRA thought the way to gain independence from Ireland was to bomb British people. There were a lot – a lot – of Americans and/or Irish expatriates living in America who supported them in this effort by raising money and sending them cash and ordinance.
One of the possible ways the British government could have responded might have been to identify the more notable of those folks and set about assassinating them, here in the US.
They didn’t have drones at the time, so substitute some other historically appropriate means of assassination. But make it one that has a high potential for collateral damage.
Maybe letter bombs.
Imagine a campaign of letter bombs, sent by the UK, to individuals in the US, intending to blow them up. Some would kill the intended target, some would kill someone other than the intended target. Some would kill the intended target *and* someone other than the intended target.
But the Brits would likely rub out a few folks who were directly supporting a campaign of organized political terror, aimed at their citizens.
So – occasional letter bombs, sent by the British government, blowing up people here in the US. Sometimes people who supported IRA terrorism, sometimes folks who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Collateral damage as it were. But, at least some of the time, folks who were actively involved in planning or supporting acts of terrorist violence against British citizens.
Would that be wrong? If so, why?
Here is a thought experiment.
A while back, the IRA thought the way to gain independence from Ireland was to bomb British people. There were a lot – a lot – of Americans and/or Irish expatriates living in America who supported them in this effort by raising money and sending them cash and ordinance.
One of the possible ways the British government could have responded might have been to identify the more notable of those folks and set about assassinating them, here in the US.
They didn’t have drones at the time, so substitute some other historically appropriate means of assassination. But make it one that has a high potential for collateral damage.
Maybe letter bombs.
Imagine a campaign of letter bombs, sent by the UK, to individuals in the US, intending to blow them up. Some would kill the intended target, some would kill someone other than the intended target. Some would kill the intended target *and* someone other than the intended target.
But the Brits would likely rub out a few folks who were directly supporting a campaign of organized political terror, aimed at their citizens.
So – occasional letter bombs, sent by the British government, blowing up people here in the US. Sometimes people who supported IRA terrorism, sometimes folks who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Collateral damage as it were. But, at least some of the time, folks who were actively involved in planning or supporting acts of terrorist violence against British citizens.
Would that be wrong? If so, why?
russell: The rules of war do not apply here. Not unless you want to define “battlefield” as the entire freaking planet, and “enemy soldier” as anybody we think might be working, or even just intending, to harm us.”
I agree that the AUMF is too vague, but I don’t agree that with your apparent belief that the concept of war doesn’t apply here.
Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who were killed, had long expressed their own affiliation with al Qaida, which is pretty clearly the primary “organization” (under AUMF) responsible for the September 11 attacks. If people want to wring their hands and beat their chests about a President, with Congressional authorization, and with apparent judicial accordance (see Hamdi, for example, which although precisely on point contains language which certainly seems to approve dealing with an American citizen abroad under the AUMF as an enemy combatant,) targeting specific people who are making a concerted effort to kill people, and doing so from places in the world beyond the reach of the law, then they can go ahead. But saying that it’s not lawful – when all three branches of government seem to approve of it – that seems to me to be incorrect.
Even conceding that the AUMF is too vague, it’s much better (I think) than declaring war against the many nations where al Qaida has “cells” on the theory that such a declaration would better define the battlefield. Targeting a relatively small number of people in various countries seems much more palatable than invading and occupying a country.
As to whether we should fear an organization that actively plots terrorist attacks – well, I’m generally against using fear as a basis for public policy. But I do think that preventing further murder by an organization which has already succeeded in producing the largest loss of life in a single terrorist attack on the United States is a reasonable basis for the Executive to act, especially when he has Congressional and apparent judicial authorization. It seems to me that if an attack did take place in the face of a failure to use the apparent legal means of preventing it, the Executive would be guilty of gross malfeasance. If I were President, I would rather have the deaths of Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan on my conscience than another mass attack.
But the solution to that is not to adopt a policy that we can kill anybody we like, anywhere in the world, on the say-so of the executive, with no meaningful review or recourse.
It’s not a “policy”; it’s a law – the AUMF. It’s not “anybody we like … on the say-so of the executive,” it’s people who are encompassed by the AUMF. Fine to argue that you don’t like the law; not fine to mischaracterize it as some kind of unilateral executive “policy”.
russell: The rules of war do not apply here. Not unless you want to define “battlefield” as the entire freaking planet, and “enemy soldier” as anybody we think might be working, or even just intending, to harm us.”
I agree that the AUMF is too vague, but I don’t agree that with your apparent belief that the concept of war doesn’t apply here.
Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who were killed, had long expressed their own affiliation with al Qaida, which is pretty clearly the primary “organization” (under AUMF) responsible for the September 11 attacks. If people want to wring their hands and beat their chests about a President, with Congressional authorization, and with apparent judicial accordance (see Hamdi, for example, which although precisely on point contains language which certainly seems to approve dealing with an American citizen abroad under the AUMF as an enemy combatant,) targeting specific people who are making a concerted effort to kill people, and doing so from places in the world beyond the reach of the law, then they can go ahead. But saying that it’s not lawful – when all three branches of government seem to approve of it – that seems to me to be incorrect.
Even conceding that the AUMF is too vague, it’s much better (I think) than declaring war against the many nations where al Qaida has “cells” on the theory that such a declaration would better define the battlefield. Targeting a relatively small number of people in various countries seems much more palatable than invading and occupying a country.
As to whether we should fear an organization that actively plots terrorist attacks – well, I’m generally against using fear as a basis for public policy. But I do think that preventing further murder by an organization which has already succeeded in producing the largest loss of life in a single terrorist attack on the United States is a reasonable basis for the Executive to act, especially when he has Congressional and apparent judicial authorization. It seems to me that if an attack did take place in the face of a failure to use the apparent legal means of preventing it, the Executive would be guilty of gross malfeasance. If I were President, I would rather have the deaths of Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan on my conscience than another mass attack.
But the solution to that is not to adopt a policy that we can kill anybody we like, anywhere in the world, on the say-so of the executive, with no meaningful review or recourse.
It’s not a “policy”; it’s a law – the AUMF. It’s not “anybody we like … on the say-so of the executive,” it’s people who are encompassed by the AUMF. Fine to argue that you don’t like the law; not fine to mischaracterize it as some kind of unilateral executive “policy”.
Where’s the evidence? Why should I take the word of the Executive?
Who can be anyone on planet Earth.
How is this not on the say-so of the exective? I don’t understand what your basis is for this claim. Are you asserting that, in fact, the President or staff person consults Congress or the judiciary as to who goes on the “kill list”? Is that not a decision made solely by the Executive Branch?
So we should kill people for speech? Really?
Really?
Stepping back, I’ve been gone for a while from ObWi, so I certainly am asking this from partial ignorance, Sapient, but, respectfully, are there any serious decisions by the Obama administration that you don’t defend?
Where’s the evidence? Why should I take the word of the Executive?
Who can be anyone on planet Earth.
How is this not on the say-so of the exective? I don’t understand what your basis is for this claim. Are you asserting that, in fact, the President or staff person consults Congress or the judiciary as to who goes on the “kill list”? Is that not a decision made solely by the Executive Branch?
So we should kill people for speech? Really?
Really?
Stepping back, I’ve been gone for a while from ObWi, so I certainly am asking this from partial ignorance, Sapient, but, respectfully, are there any serious decisions by the Obama administration that you don’t defend?
Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who were killed, had long expressed their own affiliation with al Qaida, which is pretty clearly the primary “organization” (under AUMF) responsible for the September 11 attacks.
Weasel words. Define affiliation in this context. Be precise. In particular, demonstrate how they “planned, authorized, committed, or aided” in the commission of the attacks of 2001, or how they are actually members of Al-Qaida qua Al-Qaida. Being a member of an organization expressing solidarity with, ideological sympathy with, or partially shared name with Al-Qaida is not sufficient.
If people want to wring their hands and beat their chests about a President, with Congressional authorization, and with apparent judicial accordance (see Hamdi, for example, which although precisely on point contains language which certainly seems to approve dealing with an American citizen abroad under the AUMF as an enemy combatant,) targeting specific people who are making a concerted effort to kill people, and doing so from places in the world beyond the reach of the law, then they can go ahead.
Non-sequitur. Please demonstrate how these individuals were making a concerted effort to kill people, insofar as said killing would constitute “acts of international terrorism against the United States”. Note that this alone is not in any case sufficient to invoke the AUMF; you’ll first need to demonstrate the above contention regarding membership in a group that carried out, or alternately operational involvement in the planning or execution of, the 2001 attacks.
Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who were killed, had long expressed their own affiliation with al Qaida, which is pretty clearly the primary “organization” (under AUMF) responsible for the September 11 attacks.
Weasel words. Define affiliation in this context. Be precise. In particular, demonstrate how they “planned, authorized, committed, or aided” in the commission of the attacks of 2001, or how they are actually members of Al-Qaida qua Al-Qaida. Being a member of an organization expressing solidarity with, ideological sympathy with, or partially shared name with Al-Qaida is not sufficient.
If people want to wring their hands and beat their chests about a President, with Congressional authorization, and with apparent judicial accordance (see Hamdi, for example, which although precisely on point contains language which certainly seems to approve dealing with an American citizen abroad under the AUMF as an enemy combatant,) targeting specific people who are making a concerted effort to kill people, and doing so from places in the world beyond the reach of the law, then they can go ahead.
Non-sequitur. Please demonstrate how these individuals were making a concerted effort to kill people, insofar as said killing would constitute “acts of international terrorism against the United States”. Note that this alone is not in any case sufficient to invoke the AUMF; you’ll first need to demonstrate the above contention regarding membership in a group that carried out, or alternately operational involvement in the planning or execution of, the 2001 attacks.
There is actual precedent of a foreign government assassinating its own citizens on US soil, in Washington DC no less. Operation Condor included the murder by car bomb of Orlando Letelier. Iirc Pinochet’s Chile was a prime vassal..eh..ally of the US at the time. Just to refresh memory: Pinochet’s putsch against Allende took place on 9/11, it was even the same day of the week.
There is actual precedent of a foreign government assassinating its own citizens on US soil, in Washington DC no less. Operation Condor included the murder by car bomb of Orlando Letelier. Iirc Pinochet’s Chile was a prime vassal..eh..ally of the US at the time. Just to refresh memory: Pinochet’s putsch against Allende took place on 9/11, it was even the same day of the week.
Some excellent charts on casualties of terrorism should be looked at by many, please, here.
One set of numbers to compare:
Hartmut is quite correct about Letelier and Operation Condor, by the way.
But that bombing also killed not just Letelier, but also an American citizen:
And let’s jump back to someone I mentioned earlier:
Then one can read — I can give plenty of other sources than Wikipedia, if anyone would like — about U.S. support for Operation Condor.
Some excellent charts on casualties of terrorism should be looked at by many, please, here.
One set of numbers to compare:
Hartmut is quite correct about Letelier and Operation Condor, by the way.
But that bombing also killed not just Letelier, but also an American citizen:
And let’s jump back to someone I mentioned earlier:
Then one can read — I can give plenty of other sources than Wikipedia, if anyone would like — about U.S. support for Operation Condor.
Gary, I don’t see why I shouldn’t defend the Obama administration. I find his policies reasonable. In fact, I think he’s the best President we’ve ever had (certainly in my lifetime). I don’t agree with every aspect of what he does, but I try to understand what he does in light of the challenges we face and the political environment he operates in. I believe that terrorism is a problem, and that a President has the job of preventing attacks on the U.S. (and to whatever degree is demanded by treaty, to allies). I don’t think we should stage imperialistic wars as Bush did, but I’m not averse to using the military. (As to killing for “speech,” I don’t think killing Joseph Goebbels would have been a problem, and I feel the same way about people propagandizing for al Qaeda’s terrorists, especially those who have had direct communications with people who have murdered Americans in the U.S, and themselves are protected in an armed encampment.)
As to things I would prefer (but I understand might be politically impossible or unwise): I would prefer less coddling of Israel. I would prefer having had some kind of truth commission or something to “look back” on the issue of torture. I would prefer seeing some more serious accountability for the financial crisis, and question whether Wall Street has had too much of an influence on policy (caveat: my knowledge about “fixing” the financial crisis is shallow, and my opinions on this issue are based on emotion). But in every case, as to things I would prefer, I understand that decisions have to be made as to whether the outcome of a policy would actually further the ends sought. If a “truth commission” would become a media circus, it wouldn’t really serve the ends of justice. If prosecutions would be unsuccessful, they would do more harm than good. I have no clue who would have done a better job than Geithner. Obama made reasonable judgments, and I don’t see the point of second guessing him without a firm conviction about a better outcome.
So, no, some decisions I don’t absolutely agree with, but I understand. I’m generally pleased with Obama’s policies and am incredibly grateful that he’s President. I don’t know if he will win reelection. If he doesn’t, the country might be unsalvageable. That’s my opinion. Although I respect and appreciate yours, Gary, I think it’s important to distinguish between two sets of standards, war and criminal justice. And I believe that undermining Obama’s popularity with the left only serves the right.
envy, the people targeted publicly proclaimed their affiliation with an organization with the same name and the same terrorist principals as the one we’ve identified as having conducted the 9/11 attacks. If it’s not specific enough for you, perhaps you should encourage the matter to be litigated. Or perhaps you’re of the view that we should primary Obama or elect a Republican. Maybe you should encourage Congress to repeal or amend the AUMF. (I might be in favor of amendment to clarify situations where military, rather than law enforcement, authority is authorized. Such an amendment would not be an effort to change Obama’s current policy.)
I’m sure I’ve made my point as well as I can so I’m going to try to refrain from commenting further on this.
Gary, I don’t see why I shouldn’t defend the Obama administration. I find his policies reasonable. In fact, I think he’s the best President we’ve ever had (certainly in my lifetime). I don’t agree with every aspect of what he does, but I try to understand what he does in light of the challenges we face and the political environment he operates in. I believe that terrorism is a problem, and that a President has the job of preventing attacks on the U.S. (and to whatever degree is demanded by treaty, to allies). I don’t think we should stage imperialistic wars as Bush did, but I’m not averse to using the military. (As to killing for “speech,” I don’t think killing Joseph Goebbels would have been a problem, and I feel the same way about people propagandizing for al Qaeda’s terrorists, especially those who have had direct communications with people who have murdered Americans in the U.S, and themselves are protected in an armed encampment.)
As to things I would prefer (but I understand might be politically impossible or unwise): I would prefer less coddling of Israel. I would prefer having had some kind of truth commission or something to “look back” on the issue of torture. I would prefer seeing some more serious accountability for the financial crisis, and question whether Wall Street has had too much of an influence on policy (caveat: my knowledge about “fixing” the financial crisis is shallow, and my opinions on this issue are based on emotion). But in every case, as to things I would prefer, I understand that decisions have to be made as to whether the outcome of a policy would actually further the ends sought. If a “truth commission” would become a media circus, it wouldn’t really serve the ends of justice. If prosecutions would be unsuccessful, they would do more harm than good. I have no clue who would have done a better job than Geithner. Obama made reasonable judgments, and I don’t see the point of second guessing him without a firm conviction about a better outcome.
So, no, some decisions I don’t absolutely agree with, but I understand. I’m generally pleased with Obama’s policies and am incredibly grateful that he’s President. I don’t know if he will win reelection. If he doesn’t, the country might be unsalvageable. That’s my opinion. Although I respect and appreciate yours, Gary, I think it’s important to distinguish between two sets of standards, war and criminal justice. And I believe that undermining Obama’s popularity with the left only serves the right.
envy, the people targeted publicly proclaimed their affiliation with an organization with the same name and the same terrorist principals as the one we’ve identified as having conducted the 9/11 attacks. If it’s not specific enough for you, perhaps you should encourage the matter to be litigated. Or perhaps you’re of the view that we should primary Obama or elect a Republican. Maybe you should encourage Congress to repeal or amend the AUMF. (I might be in favor of amendment to clarify situations where military, rather than law enforcement, authority is authorized. Such an amendment would not be an effort to change Obama’s current policy.)
I’m sure I’ve made my point as well as I can so I’m going to try to refrain from commenting further on this.
Hell freezes over, as Rick Moran announces he agrees with Glenn Greenwald.
Gary Johnson isn’t happy, either.
Neither are a lot of libertarian conservatives.
Sapient:
I asked:
So is that a “no,” or a non-sequitur?
Later, you stated you had “preferences” for policies. This doesn’t answer my question.
So you do favor killing people for their speech. Thanks for clarifying. (If I’m somehow misunderstanding this, please do correct me.)
Yes, that’s consistent with what you write.
I agree we’re not apt to get much further whenever we discuss anything related to the Obama presidency, since it appears that you will simply defend Obama no matter what, on absolutely any and every issue of consequence, so as not to “undermine” him.
I don’t share the view that because a politician is far less worse than others, or is even great, we must not criticize them in public.
As a matter of practical politics, if we don’t push politicians to support our causes, we surrender to those pushing them the other way.
Causes are what matter: not cults of personality.
Hell freezes over, as Rick Moran announces he agrees with Glenn Greenwald.
Gary Johnson isn’t happy, either.
Neither are a lot of libertarian conservatives.
Sapient:
I asked:
So is that a “no,” or a non-sequitur?
Later, you stated you had “preferences” for policies. This doesn’t answer my question.
So you do favor killing people for their speech. Thanks for clarifying. (If I’m somehow misunderstanding this, please do correct me.)
Yes, that’s consistent with what you write.
I agree we’re not apt to get much further whenever we discuss anything related to the Obama presidency, since it appears that you will simply defend Obama no matter what, on absolutely any and every issue of consequence, so as not to “undermine” him.
I don’t share the view that because a politician is far less worse than others, or is even great, we must not criticize them in public.
As a matter of practical politics, if we don’t push politicians to support our causes, we surrender to those pushing them the other way.
Causes are what matter: not cults of personality.
envy, the people targeted publicly proclaimed their affiliation with an organization with the same name and the same terrorist principals as the one we’ve identified as having conducted the 9/11 attacks.
Hmm. Let’s see. Proclaimed affiliation (for some undefined definition of affiliation), with a similarly-named and principled organization to the one that would allow for the invocation of the AUMF. So you still won’t or can’t identify them as actually being members of Al-Qaida (you know, “the one that […] conducted the 9/11 attacks”), but rather continue to opt for conflation via a hand-waving assertion of “affiliation”. However, I must at least give you credit for admitting you wanted them killed for what they said rather than continuing to argue they represented a clear and present danger to the US. None the less, I think it’s pretty safe to agree that you’re not going to make your point any more clear than you just did.
Precision matters in law. If you’re not willing to demonstrate how and why a law applies, it doesn’t help your apologia to invoke it.
envy, the people targeted publicly proclaimed their affiliation with an organization with the same name and the same terrorist principals as the one we’ve identified as having conducted the 9/11 attacks.
Hmm. Let’s see. Proclaimed affiliation (for some undefined definition of affiliation), with a similarly-named and principled organization to the one that would allow for the invocation of the AUMF. So you still won’t or can’t identify them as actually being members of Al-Qaida (you know, “the one that […] conducted the 9/11 attacks”), but rather continue to opt for conflation via a hand-waving assertion of “affiliation”. However, I must at least give you credit for admitting you wanted them killed for what they said rather than continuing to argue they represented a clear and present danger to the US. None the less, I think it’s pretty safe to agree that you’re not going to make your point any more clear than you just did.
Precision matters in law. If you’re not willing to demonstrate how and why a law applies, it doesn’t help your apologia to invoke it.
envy,
How would YOU identify anybody as a “member of Al-Qaida”? I am asking the question seriously, but I am willing to consider that it may be a meaningless question.
Let’s suppose, however, that there exist people in the world who consider themselves “members of Al-Qaida”. There’s no guarantee that “Al-Qaida” (whatever it is) considers them “members” (whatever that means), but if “Al-Qaida” exists, some people have to be “members” of it.
I am not asking WHO should decide whether some fellow who says “I am a member of Al-Qaida” is indeed a member of Al-Qaida. I am NOT asking whether the POTUS, or the SCOTUS, or you or I, should decide the question. I am NOT asking whether you think bona fide members of Al-Qaida ought to be considered enemy soldiers or international criminals or even just obnoxious pissants. I am only asking what evidence you would consider adequate for you, yourself, to say, “Okay, that guy IS a member of Al-Qaida.”
–TP
envy,
How would YOU identify anybody as a “member of Al-Qaida”? I am asking the question seriously, but I am willing to consider that it may be a meaningless question.
Let’s suppose, however, that there exist people in the world who consider themselves “members of Al-Qaida”. There’s no guarantee that “Al-Qaida” (whatever it is) considers them “members” (whatever that means), but if “Al-Qaida” exists, some people have to be “members” of it.
I am not asking WHO should decide whether some fellow who says “I am a member of Al-Qaida” is indeed a member of Al-Qaida. I am NOT asking whether the POTUS, or the SCOTUS, or you or I, should decide the question. I am NOT asking whether you think bona fide members of Al-Qaida ought to be considered enemy soldiers or international criminals or even just obnoxious pissants. I am only asking what evidence you would consider adequate for you, yourself, to say, “Okay, that guy IS a member of Al-Qaida.”
–TP
I agree we’re not apt to get much further whenever we discuss anything related to the Obama presidency, since it appears that you will simply defend Obama no matter what, on absolutely any and every issue of consequence, so as not to “undermine” him.
Well, I also happen to agree with Obama’s policies, which is why I’m so impressed with his presidency. As to the “Godwin” accusation, when we’re distinguishing “war” from courtroom procedure, it’s helpful to have a point of reference from a previous war, and most people are familiar with the propagandist for the enemy in WWII. He would have been a fair target, in my opinion. As far as I know, Goebbels was a “speech” guy too.
I agree we’re not apt to get much further whenever we discuss anything related to the Obama presidency, since it appears that you will simply defend Obama no matter what, on absolutely any and every issue of consequence, so as not to “undermine” him.
Well, I also happen to agree with Obama’s policies, which is why I’m so impressed with his presidency. As to the “Godwin” accusation, when we’re distinguishing “war” from courtroom procedure, it’s helpful to have a point of reference from a previous war, and most people are familiar with the propagandist for the enemy in WWII. He would have been a fair target, in my opinion. As far as I know, Goebbels was a “speech” guy too.
Why should I take the word of the Executive?
And there you have it.
Thank you.
*At a bare minimum*, the President should be required to demonstrate that the person assassinated actually did represent a threat that was so credible and so immediate that other channels were simply not adequate.
At a minimum.
And welcome back Gary, it’s great to see you back here!
For those who find the killing of Al Awlaki non-problematic, I’ll ask the question again:
Imagine a campaign of letter bombs, sent by Britain to the US during the Troubles, intended to assassinate folks who provided material support for the IRA in their campaign of terrorist bombings.
The context is not hypothetical, there most definitely were people, American citizens and others, living in the US during that time who provided direct support for terrorist activity by the IRA, with the full knowledge that that is what they were doing.
They were donating time, money, and materials to *kill innocent British citizens*. Knowingly.
So – imagine the Brits responded with a campaign of letter bombs, targeted as precisely as is practical at the folks who were, directly or indirectly, killing their citizens. As a result of this letter bomb campaign, some folks who provided direct support to real live terrorists get killed. Unfortunately, some other folks get killed. A neighbor, a postman, some guy who happened to walking down the wrong street at the wrong time.
Sh*t happens.
Good? Bad? Legitimate? Not legitimate? Why?
I’ll look forward to a reply from McK and sapient in particular, but anyone else who wants to weigh in, feel free.
If Al Awlaki’s assassination was legitimate, the action I’ve just described would be legitimate. If you think not, please explain why.
Why should I take the word of the Executive?
And there you have it.
Thank you.
*At a bare minimum*, the President should be required to demonstrate that the person assassinated actually did represent a threat that was so credible and so immediate that other channels were simply not adequate.
At a minimum.
And welcome back Gary, it’s great to see you back here!
For those who find the killing of Al Awlaki non-problematic, I’ll ask the question again:
Imagine a campaign of letter bombs, sent by Britain to the US during the Troubles, intended to assassinate folks who provided material support for the IRA in their campaign of terrorist bombings.
The context is not hypothetical, there most definitely were people, American citizens and others, living in the US during that time who provided direct support for terrorist activity by the IRA, with the full knowledge that that is what they were doing.
They were donating time, money, and materials to *kill innocent British citizens*. Knowingly.
So – imagine the Brits responded with a campaign of letter bombs, targeted as precisely as is practical at the folks who were, directly or indirectly, killing their citizens. As a result of this letter bomb campaign, some folks who provided direct support to real live terrorists get killed. Unfortunately, some other folks get killed. A neighbor, a postman, some guy who happened to walking down the wrong street at the wrong time.
Sh*t happens.
Good? Bad? Legitimate? Not legitimate? Why?
I’ll look forward to a reply from McK and sapient in particular, but anyone else who wants to weigh in, feel free.
If Al Awlaki’s assassination was legitimate, the action I’ve just described would be legitimate. If you think not, please explain why.
I am only asking what evidence you would consider adequate for you, yourself, to say, “Okay, that guy IS a member of Al-Qaida.”
Group membership for ill-defined groups can be a tangled mess. Not denying that. However, when discussing groups like this, there is more involved than proclamation of membership. Indeed, the AUMF can be argued to have this as an unstated premise. It authorizes the military to attack nations, organizations, and individuals involved in the 2001 attacks in order to prevent future attacks. Attacking the groups who carried out or assisted in the planning or execution of the attacks is to the end of avoiding recurrence. There is an implicit notion of causality, which suggests some form of command and control. If the organization to which the individual belongs is not meaningfully subject to the orders of the leaders of, nor materially or logistically affected by attacks on, the 9/11-responsible organization, it is unreasonable to assert that it is actually the same organization. And it does not help to assert that this separate but “affiliated” group or individual aids the responsible group (or vaguer still, aids the realization of said group’s overarching goals); the AUMF makes no provision for use of force against non-members unless the non-members can be said to be “harboring” them. Harboring is something that can’t really apply to sub-national organizations in this context, so that’s not overmuch helpful either.
If you have groups which share nothing but name and methodology, then “declaring war” on all of them (rather than following the AUMF’s lead and declaring war on the initial group that was actually responsible for the attacks referenced therein) amounts to the frequently-heard accusation of having declared war on an abstract noun or a tactic. At which point, we’ve returned to the above-mentioned accusations of the executive having carte blanche to dole out assassinations and military strikes as they see fit…
I am only asking what evidence you would consider adequate for you, yourself, to say, “Okay, that guy IS a member of Al-Qaida.”
Group membership for ill-defined groups can be a tangled mess. Not denying that. However, when discussing groups like this, there is more involved than proclamation of membership. Indeed, the AUMF can be argued to have this as an unstated premise. It authorizes the military to attack nations, organizations, and individuals involved in the 2001 attacks in order to prevent future attacks. Attacking the groups who carried out or assisted in the planning or execution of the attacks is to the end of avoiding recurrence. There is an implicit notion of causality, which suggests some form of command and control. If the organization to which the individual belongs is not meaningfully subject to the orders of the leaders of, nor materially or logistically affected by attacks on, the 9/11-responsible organization, it is unreasonable to assert that it is actually the same organization. And it does not help to assert that this separate but “affiliated” group or individual aids the responsible group (or vaguer still, aids the realization of said group’s overarching goals); the AUMF makes no provision for use of force against non-members unless the non-members can be said to be “harboring” them. Harboring is something that can’t really apply to sub-national organizations in this context, so that’s not overmuch helpful either.
If you have groups which share nothing but name and methodology, then “declaring war” on all of them (rather than following the AUMF’s lead and declaring war on the initial group that was actually responsible for the attacks referenced therein) amounts to the frequently-heard accusation of having declared war on an abstract noun or a tactic. At which point, we’ve returned to the above-mentioned accusations of the executive having carte blanche to dole out assassinations and military strikes as they see fit…
There’s little evidence that Al-Awlaki motivated almost anyone outside the United States.
Or heard of him. He was a propaganda in English, as an American, directing his agitprop at Americans.
Unless he had lasers coming out of his eyes, or similar super-powers, I don’t see the threat sufficient to grant the President of the United States unilateral power to secretly order executions.
This is insane fear. al Qaeda does not command an army that conquered Europe. The comparison is simply insane.
President Obama — in video, in his live speech to the nation on June 22, 2011:
What is “al Qaeda”?
If people want to discuss “al Qaeda,” PLEASE BE SPECIFIC: are you referring to: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula?
Islamic Jihad of Yemen?
“Al-Qaeda in Iraq”?
“Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb”?
Al-Shabaab (Mujahideen Youth Movement) in Somalia?
Egyptian Islamic Jihad?
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group?
East Turkestan Islamic Movement in Xinjiang, China?
Or just Loudmouthed Guys On Teh Internetz, who are as dangerous as the commenters on YouTube, or any anti-American Chinese citizen online, or any loudmouth extremely left or rightwing internet shouter on the internet?
Back to Wikipedia:
Meanwhile, since September 12th, 2001, how many Americans have even supporters of al Qaeda killed on American soil?
Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people, but oh look:
So, who wants to suggest a number for how many Americans on American soil have been killed “by al Qaeda” since ten years ago, oh, today?
Al Qaeda is an ideology, and support for it in the Islamic world is presently next to nil. It’s almost dead.
Support among American Muslism is about non-existent.
Ditto Muslims around the world.
If Awlaki was Goebbels, let me quote dear old Joseph Stalin:
Al Qaeda as remotely the threat Nazi Germany was? Insanity. I’d like to be politer, and will take suggestions for a word that’s politer, and still accurate about the comparison.
There’s little evidence that Al-Awlaki motivated almost anyone outside the United States.
Or heard of him. He was a propaganda in English, as an American, directing his agitprop at Americans.
Unless he had lasers coming out of his eyes, or similar super-powers, I don’t see the threat sufficient to grant the President of the United States unilateral power to secretly order executions.
This is insane fear. al Qaeda does not command an army that conquered Europe. The comparison is simply insane.
President Obama — in video, in his live speech to the nation on June 22, 2011:
What is “al Qaeda”?
If people want to discuss “al Qaeda,” PLEASE BE SPECIFIC: are you referring to: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula?
Islamic Jihad of Yemen?
“Al-Qaeda in Iraq”?
“Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb”?
Al-Shabaab (Mujahideen Youth Movement) in Somalia?
Egyptian Islamic Jihad?
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group?
East Turkestan Islamic Movement in Xinjiang, China?
Or just Loudmouthed Guys On Teh Internetz, who are as dangerous as the commenters on YouTube, or any anti-American Chinese citizen online, or any loudmouth extremely left or rightwing internet shouter on the internet?
Back to Wikipedia:
Meanwhile, since September 12th, 2001, how many Americans have even supporters of al Qaeda killed on American soil?
Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people, but oh look:
So, who wants to suggest a number for how many Americans on American soil have been killed “by al Qaeda” since ten years ago, oh, today?
Al Qaeda is an ideology, and support for it in the Islamic world is presently next to nil. It’s almost dead.
Support among American Muslism is about non-existent.
Ditto Muslims around the world.
If Awlaki was Goebbels, let me quote dear old Joseph Stalin:
Al Qaeda as remotely the threat Nazi Germany was? Insanity. I’d like to be politer, and will take suggestions for a word that’s politer, and still accurate about the comparison.
Hi Russell,
Obviously any comparison is going to apply until it doesn’t, but I don’t think the IRA one gets us so far. I could make some snarky aside about Peter King deserving something, but the IRA concentrated their overseas attacks on military installations and visible representations of the government (the Brighton bombing). This is not to dismiss the IRA’s violence in Northern Ireland, but you aren’t imagining some acolyte of Ian Paisley choosing to assassinate someone here as you say ‘sent by Britain’.
If you accept that 9-11 was a different kind of attack (and maybe you don’t, but be careful how you say that, you can see the trouble Ward Churchill got in), you might see how it might the need for a different kind of response. The Marine Barracks bombing and the USS Cole did not generate this kind of response. This is not to say that they are the same, but I wonder if things would be the same if all three planes had crashed into the Pentagon.
This is not to take sides in all this, I have a number of rather contradictory thoughts about the whole thing, but just to try and respond to what you are thinking.
Hi Russell,
Obviously any comparison is going to apply until it doesn’t, but I don’t think the IRA one gets us so far. I could make some snarky aside about Peter King deserving something, but the IRA concentrated their overseas attacks on military installations and visible representations of the government (the Brighton bombing). This is not to dismiss the IRA’s violence in Northern Ireland, but you aren’t imagining some acolyte of Ian Paisley choosing to assassinate someone here as you say ‘sent by Britain’.
If you accept that 9-11 was a different kind of attack (and maybe you don’t, but be careful how you say that, you can see the trouble Ward Churchill got in), you might see how it might the need for a different kind of response. The Marine Barracks bombing and the USS Cole did not generate this kind of response. This is not to say that they are the same, but I wonder if things would be the same if all three planes had crashed into the Pentagon.
This is not to take sides in all this, I have a number of rather contradictory thoughts about the whole thing, but just to try and respond to what you are thinking.
Just adding to the comment by liberal japonicus, russell, I don’t think a comparison is apt given the 235 years of history that exists between the United States and Britain, and the diplomatic and law enforcement efforts made to address the problem.
Gary, I never said that the threat of al Qaeda and Nazi Germany were equal threats, as you know. Such a statement would present a Godwin issue. I said that the role of an enemy agent as propagandist doesn’t protect the enemy agent merely because such a role is that of “speech”. But you know what I was saying and you’re trying to obfuscate.
Whether or not you believe that al Qaeda is a threat (and perhaps they aren’t a threat precisely because of the war that’s been waged against them for the past 10 years), Congress did issue the AUMF (which appears to be accepted by all three branches of government as legitimate) to protect against further terrorist attacks. Awlaki, a self-proclaimed member of al Qaeda, was connected to the perpetrators of one successful murder and two attempts. As long as the AUMF is in place, and there’s that connection with someone admitting to be an enemy, I don’t really see how anyone could expect the Executive not to act.
But I repeat myself. This is about war, not Constitutional criminal procedure. If you don’t approve of it, lobby Congress to withdraw the Authorization.
Just adding to the comment by liberal japonicus, russell, I don’t think a comparison is apt given the 235 years of history that exists between the United States and Britain, and the diplomatic and law enforcement efforts made to address the problem.
Gary, I never said that the threat of al Qaeda and Nazi Germany were equal threats, as you know. Such a statement would present a Godwin issue. I said that the role of an enemy agent as propagandist doesn’t protect the enemy agent merely because such a role is that of “speech”. But you know what I was saying and you’re trying to obfuscate.
Whether or not you believe that al Qaeda is a threat (and perhaps they aren’t a threat precisely because of the war that’s been waged against them for the past 10 years), Congress did issue the AUMF (which appears to be accepted by all three branches of government as legitimate) to protect against further terrorist attacks. Awlaki, a self-proclaimed member of al Qaeda, was connected to the perpetrators of one successful murder and two attempts. As long as the AUMF is in place, and there’s that connection with someone admitting to be an enemy, I don’t really see how anyone could expect the Executive not to act.
But I repeat myself. This is about war, not Constitutional criminal procedure. If you don’t approve of it, lobby Congress to withdraw the Authorization.
This whole back-and-forth between Gary and sapient is dismayingly familiar.
This whole back-and-forth between Gary and sapient is dismayingly familiar.
Sapient:
Please don’t do this. Thanks.
I agree that Congress should, at the least, heavily modify the AUMF.
I think we can conclude this interchange, Sapient, since we’ve said our pieces, and we don’t seem to have facts left worth arguing about; you’re certainly entitled to your opinions and feelings. Thanks for your views.
Sapient:
Please don’t do this. Thanks.
I agree that Congress should, at the least, heavily modify the AUMF.
I think we can conclude this interchange, Sapient, since we’ve said our pieces, and we don’t seem to have facts left worth arguing about; you’re certainly entitled to your opinions and feelings. Thanks for your views.
Awlaki, a self-proclaimed member of al Qaeda, was connected to the perpetrators of one successful murder and two attempts. As long as the AUMF is in place, and there’s that connection with someone admitting to be an enemy, I don’t really see how anyone could expect the Executive not to act.
Really? So it’s now a capital offense to be “connected” to a murderer? Really? Honestly, it’s hard to take your arguments seriously when you offer up specious assertions like this.
But I repeat myself. This is about war, not Constitutional criminal procedure. If you don’t approve of it, lobby Congress to withdraw the Authorization.
Um. Go read up on Law of War before you try to handwave away any questions about the legitimacy of Awlaki’s killing with simple-minded repetitions of “this is war”. You don’t do yourself any credit by suggesting that all one need do is hand off operational control to a military command and suddenly anything goes. Seriously. I’m going to repeat what I said upthread: I would not want to answer for having given the order to hit him before an impartial court-martial. I’m not saying the case could not be made that he was a legitimate military target, I’m saying it would have to be made, and from where I’m sitting, it’s looking pretty damned weak. This looks an awful lot like a targeted killing of a non-combatant, if you want to view it from a purely military standpoint.
Awlaki, a self-proclaimed member of al Qaeda, was connected to the perpetrators of one successful murder and two attempts. As long as the AUMF is in place, and there’s that connection with someone admitting to be an enemy, I don’t really see how anyone could expect the Executive not to act.
Really? So it’s now a capital offense to be “connected” to a murderer? Really? Honestly, it’s hard to take your arguments seriously when you offer up specious assertions like this.
But I repeat myself. This is about war, not Constitutional criminal procedure. If you don’t approve of it, lobby Congress to withdraw the Authorization.
Um. Go read up on Law of War before you try to handwave away any questions about the legitimacy of Awlaki’s killing with simple-minded repetitions of “this is war”. You don’t do yourself any credit by suggesting that all one need do is hand off operational control to a military command and suddenly anything goes. Seriously. I’m going to repeat what I said upthread: I would not want to answer for having given the order to hit him before an impartial court-martial. I’m not saying the case could not be made that he was a legitimate military target, I’m saying it would have to be made, and from where I’m sitting, it’s looking pretty damned weak. This looks an awful lot like a targeted killing of a non-combatant, if you want to view it from a purely military standpoint.
the IRA concentrated their overseas attacks on military installations and visible representations of the government
It’s not my understanding that IRA acts of terror were limited to British military and specifically government people or institutions.
And I’m not sure how much of a difference it makes. Likewise, I’m not sure how much of a difference our 235 years of history matters.
We can blow up people in Yemen, because we share less of a common history with that country? How does that make sense?
I’m making a very simple point.
The executive reserves the right to target individuals for assassination, anywhere in the world, using means that are highly likely to result in other folks being killed, based on their assertion that those people are somehow involved in planning, encouraging, or carrying out acts of terror against Americans.
That’s a very broad brief, more than broad enough to cover supporters for the IRA resident in the US.
And I have no idea where you’re going with the Ward Churchill comment.
Long story short – what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. There are people in the US concerning whom other nations could make a case for assassination based on the same rationale that we use to assassinate Al Awlaki. A stronger case, probably. But we would lose our collective sh*t if any other nation went about blowing them up here, and taking whoever happened to be nearby with them.
If we can blow up Al Awlaki, and whoever happens to be near enough to him that they are within the footprint of the ordinance we use, can other nations do the same to people living here, who they consider to be threats to them?
Those people exist.
If they can’t do so, why not?
If they can, are we going to accept the occasional killing of our friends, neighbors, and fellow-citizens as part of the deal?
the IRA concentrated their overseas attacks on military installations and visible representations of the government
It’s not my understanding that IRA acts of terror were limited to British military and specifically government people or institutions.
And I’m not sure how much of a difference it makes. Likewise, I’m not sure how much of a difference our 235 years of history matters.
We can blow up people in Yemen, because we share less of a common history with that country? How does that make sense?
I’m making a very simple point.
The executive reserves the right to target individuals for assassination, anywhere in the world, using means that are highly likely to result in other folks being killed, based on their assertion that those people are somehow involved in planning, encouraging, or carrying out acts of terror against Americans.
That’s a very broad brief, more than broad enough to cover supporters for the IRA resident in the US.
And I have no idea where you’re going with the Ward Churchill comment.
Long story short – what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. There are people in the US concerning whom other nations could make a case for assassination based on the same rationale that we use to assassinate Al Awlaki. A stronger case, probably. But we would lose our collective sh*t if any other nation went about blowing them up here, and taking whoever happened to be nearby with them.
If we can blow up Al Awlaki, and whoever happens to be near enough to him that they are within the footprint of the ordinance we use, can other nations do the same to people living here, who they consider to be threats to them?
Those people exist.
If they can’t do so, why not?
If they can, are we going to accept the occasional killing of our friends, neighbors, and fellow-citizens as part of the deal?
Irish republican attacks during “the Troubles” in London, alone.
I was going to cut and paste, but it’s too long. Not a lot of sticking to military and governmental targets.
The Provos stated their method in 1977:
Note #2.
Chronology of Provo IRA actions.
Irish republican attacks during “the Troubles” in London, alone.
I was going to cut and paste, but it’s too long. Not a lot of sticking to military and governmental targets.
The Provos stated their method in 1977:
Note #2.
Chronology of Provo IRA actions.
The executive reserves the right to target individuals for assassination, anywhere in the world, using means that are highly likely to result in other folks being killed, based on their assertion that those people are somehow involved in planning, encouraging, or carrying out acts of terror against Americans.
No, the Executive doesn’t “reserve” anything like that. The AWMF authorizes the Executive to do certain things. Read the language. “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
This is not Obama “reserving the right” or broadening the reach of Executive authority. This is Obama being authorized to use his determination to take action to prevent any future acts of terrorism. In other words, if future acts of terrorism occur, and he didn’t prevent it by using his authorization, he is to blame. This Congressional authorization (otherwise known as a law) gives him this duty. The Supreme Court has cited this law in its opinions. Its constitutionality hasn’t been challenged. Please get this straight. You don’t like the law? Tell your Congressperson.
The executive reserves the right to target individuals for assassination, anywhere in the world, using means that are highly likely to result in other folks being killed, based on their assertion that those people are somehow involved in planning, encouraging, or carrying out acts of terror against Americans.
No, the Executive doesn’t “reserve” anything like that. The AWMF authorizes the Executive to do certain things. Read the language. “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
This is not Obama “reserving the right” or broadening the reach of Executive authority. This is Obama being authorized to use his determination to take action to prevent any future acts of terrorism. In other words, if future acts of terrorism occur, and he didn’t prevent it by using his authorization, he is to blame. This Congressional authorization (otherwise known as a law) gives him this duty. The Supreme Court has cited this law in its opinions. Its constitutionality hasn’t been challenged. Please get this straight. You don’t like the law? Tell your Congressperson.
Hi Russell,
My understanding is that the IRA campaign (known as ‘the Long War’) restricted its attacks to British military infrastructure and economic targets. This from wikipedia
Despite the fact that most of the IRA’s security force victims by the late 1980s were locally recruited RUC or UDR personnel, the Provisional leadership maintained that the British Army was their preferred target. Gerry Adams in an interview given in 1988, said it was, “vastly preferable” to target the British Army as it “removes the worst of the agony from Ireland” and “diffuses the sectarian aspects of the conflict because loyalists do not see it as an attack on their community”.
Towards the end of the troubles, the Provisionals widened their campaign even further, to include the killing of people who worked in a civilian capacity with the RUC and British Army. The bloodiest example of this came in 1992, when an IRA bomb killed eight Protestant building workers who were working on a British Army base at Teebane.
The part below that describes IRA attacks outside of Ireland, and emphasizes the ‘targeted’ nature of the attacks. This seems to be a bit different than 9/11 or attempts to blow up airliners in terms of targeting. And yet, by making this hinge on citizenship, IRA bombs targeting RUC are excluded.
The Ward Churchill allusion was to his comment that those working in the WTC were a “technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire”.
This is not to claim that IRA violence was justified or to claim you are making as an inflammatory a statement as Churchill. But this goose and gander argument seems to suggest that Al Queda’s attack on 9/11 is not an upping of the ante.
I also said that I have a lot of contradictory thoughts about this. I’m not really sure why the presence of a passport makes calculations so different, though I understand this in historical terms. I’m also not suggesting that the US government start offing US citizens in order to prove that point.
But I don’t think these shoe on the other foot arguments really move the ball down the field. If some grieving father from Bhopal were to attempt to blow up a meeting of Union Carbide stockholders, there would be one response, if a group of young men from Bhopal decided to cripple the economic infrastructure of the US by bombing Wall Street, it might require a different response. If the Indian government took an attitude similar to what Pakistan apparently did with Bin Laden or was simply unable to do anything, as Yemen seems to be, that’s another difference. If one of the cell had dual citizenship, I don’t think that automatically short circuits these responses. This is not to say that I think killing Awlaki was right or justified. But I don’t think it is black and white in terms of decision making.
Hi Russell,
My understanding is that the IRA campaign (known as ‘the Long War’) restricted its attacks to British military infrastructure and economic targets. This from wikipedia
Despite the fact that most of the IRA’s security force victims by the late 1980s were locally recruited RUC or UDR personnel, the Provisional leadership maintained that the British Army was their preferred target. Gerry Adams in an interview given in 1988, said it was, “vastly preferable” to target the British Army as it “removes the worst of the agony from Ireland” and “diffuses the sectarian aspects of the conflict because loyalists do not see it as an attack on their community”.
Towards the end of the troubles, the Provisionals widened their campaign even further, to include the killing of people who worked in a civilian capacity with the RUC and British Army. The bloodiest example of this came in 1992, when an IRA bomb killed eight Protestant building workers who were working on a British Army base at Teebane.
The part below that describes IRA attacks outside of Ireland, and emphasizes the ‘targeted’ nature of the attacks. This seems to be a bit different than 9/11 or attempts to blow up airliners in terms of targeting. And yet, by making this hinge on citizenship, IRA bombs targeting RUC are excluded.
The Ward Churchill allusion was to his comment that those working in the WTC were a “technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire”.
This is not to claim that IRA violence was justified or to claim you are making as an inflammatory a statement as Churchill. But this goose and gander argument seems to suggest that Al Queda’s attack on 9/11 is not an upping of the ante.
I also said that I have a lot of contradictory thoughts about this. I’m not really sure why the presence of a passport makes calculations so different, though I understand this in historical terms. I’m also not suggesting that the US government start offing US citizens in order to prove that point.
But I don’t think these shoe on the other foot arguments really move the ball down the field. If some grieving father from Bhopal were to attempt to blow up a meeting of Union Carbide stockholders, there would be one response, if a group of young men from Bhopal decided to cripple the economic infrastructure of the US by bombing Wall Street, it might require a different response. If the Indian government took an attitude similar to what Pakistan apparently did with Bin Laden or was simply unable to do anything, as Yemen seems to be, that’s another difference. If one of the cell had dual citizenship, I don’t think that automatically short circuits these responses. This is not to say that I think killing Awlaki was right or justified. But I don’t think it is black and white in terms of decision making.
Here’s Guardian’s article on the drone attack, which should provide more grist for the mill.
Here’s Guardian’s article on the drone attack, which should provide more grist for the mill.
Rereading a couple of things, I see Gary’s comment that No one has claimed al-Awlaki had anything to do with September 11th.
But,
“Still more disturbing were Mr. Awlaki’s links to two future Sept. 11 hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhazmi. They prayed at his San Diego mosque and were seen in long conferences with the cleric. Mr. Alhazmi would follow the imam to his new mosque in Virginia, and 9/11 investigators would call Mr. Awlaki Mr. Alhazmi’s ‘spiritual adviser.'”
The F.B.I., whose agents interviewed Mr. Awlaki four times in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks, concluded that his contacts with the hijackers and other radicals were random, the inevitable consequence of living in the small world of Islam in America. But records of the 9/11 commission at the National Archives make clear that not all investigators agreed.”
So, actually, yes, someone did claim …
Rereading a couple of things, I see Gary’s comment that No one has claimed al-Awlaki had anything to do with September 11th.
But,
“Still more disturbing were Mr. Awlaki’s links to two future Sept. 11 hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhazmi. They prayed at his San Diego mosque and were seen in long conferences with the cleric. Mr. Alhazmi would follow the imam to his new mosque in Virginia, and 9/11 investigators would call Mr. Awlaki Mr. Alhazmi’s ‘spiritual adviser.'”
The F.B.I., whose agents interviewed Mr. Awlaki four times in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks, concluded that his contacts with the hijackers and other radicals were random, the inevitable consequence of living in the small world of Islam in America. But records of the 9/11 commission at the National Archives make clear that not all investigators agreed.”
So, actually, yes, someone did claim …
Oh, yes, “links.”
Everyone who posts a comment to ObWi is “linked.”
Perhaps you haven’t noticed that “linked” is a complete weasel word that subsumes every possible “link,” such as wow, having been in the same room with someone, or talked to them, or exchanged a blog comment.
“So, actually, yes, someone did claim …”
Please finish the sentence: what did they claim, specifically?
LJ, I trust you hadn’t had a chance to read my links before posting again about IRA “targeting”?
Oh, yes, “links.”
Everyone who posts a comment to ObWi is “linked.”
Perhaps you haven’t noticed that “linked” is a complete weasel word that subsumes every possible “link,” such as wow, having been in the same room with someone, or talked to them, or exchanged a blog comment.
“So, actually, yes, someone did claim …”
Please finish the sentence: what did they claim, specifically?
LJ, I trust you hadn’t had a chance to read my links before posting again about IRA “targeting”?
“This is not Obama ‘reserving the right’ or broadening the reach of Executive authority. This is Obama being authorized to use his determination to take action to prevent any future acts of terrorism. In other words, if future acts of terrorism occur, and he didn’t prevent it by using his authorization, he is to blame. This Congressional authorization (otherwise known as a law) gives him this duty. The Supreme Court has cited this law in its opinions. Its constitutionality hasn’t been challenged. Please get this straight. You don’t like the law? Tell your Congressperson.”
The law and how the law it is applied are sometimes two separate issues. For example, it can be constitutional for a cop to pull over a car with a faulty brake light. It is not constitutional for a cop to do so only for latino and african-american drivers.
Sapient, can you imagine how the AUMF might have been deemed constitutional as it has been applied so far, but not when it is used to justify due-process-free assassination? If due-process-free assassination of an American Citizen represents a novel application of the AUMF, that may mean prior evaluations of the AUMF’s constitutionality will not apply. You assume they will, but you offer no grounds for that assumption.
You say that Obama is “authorized to use his determination,” without any indication of what limits you think there might be on his authority. Do you think there are none (besides personal discretion, which, remember, is not a meaningful limit)? Do you think there should be some?
Your argument is deeply flawed because you’re speaking so broadly as to be hard to rebut without soliciting further detail. Any specifics you can offer in advance of us asking for them would be much appreciated.
“This is not Obama ‘reserving the right’ or broadening the reach of Executive authority. This is Obama being authorized to use his determination to take action to prevent any future acts of terrorism. In other words, if future acts of terrorism occur, and he didn’t prevent it by using his authorization, he is to blame. This Congressional authorization (otherwise known as a law) gives him this duty. The Supreme Court has cited this law in its opinions. Its constitutionality hasn’t been challenged. Please get this straight. You don’t like the law? Tell your Congressperson.”
The law and how the law it is applied are sometimes two separate issues. For example, it can be constitutional for a cop to pull over a car with a faulty brake light. It is not constitutional for a cop to do so only for latino and african-american drivers.
Sapient, can you imagine how the AUMF might have been deemed constitutional as it has been applied so far, but not when it is used to justify due-process-free assassination? If due-process-free assassination of an American Citizen represents a novel application of the AUMF, that may mean prior evaluations of the AUMF’s constitutionality will not apply. You assume they will, but you offer no grounds for that assumption.
You say that Obama is “authorized to use his determination,” without any indication of what limits you think there might be on his authority. Do you think there are none (besides personal discretion, which, remember, is not a meaningful limit)? Do you think there should be some?
Your argument is deeply flawed because you’re speaking so broadly as to be hard to rebut without soliciting further detail. Any specifics you can offer in advance of us asking for them would be much appreciated.
This is Obama being authorized to use his determination to take action to prevent any future acts of terrorism.
No. No, no, no, no, no. Not even close.
Read the language:
It’s not near so broad as you claim it is. In fact, in the grand scheme of things, it’s somewhat narrow. And the longer it’s been since 2001, the fewer and fewer groups and individuals it will cover, if applied as actually written, rather than as loosely interpreted.
So if an individual is not a member of an organization that participated in planning or executing the attacks 10 years ago, and did not personally do so either… the AUMF says bugger all about the President’s authority to use military force against them. Even if that person is “linked to”, “connected to”, or “affiliated with” individuals who were involved. The same goes for any other vague, conflating, weaselly associative turn of phrase you might subsequently care to offer.
This is Obama being authorized to use his determination to take action to prevent any future acts of terrorism.
No. No, no, no, no, no. Not even close.
Read the language:
It’s not near so broad as you claim it is. In fact, in the grand scheme of things, it’s somewhat narrow. And the longer it’s been since 2001, the fewer and fewer groups and individuals it will cover, if applied as actually written, rather than as loosely interpreted.
So if an individual is not a member of an organization that participated in planning or executing the attacks 10 years ago, and did not personally do so either… the AUMF says bugger all about the President’s authority to use military force against them. Even if that person is “linked to”, “connected to”, or “affiliated with” individuals who were involved. The same goes for any other vague, conflating, weaselly associative turn of phrase you might subsequently care to offer.
Actually, Gary, I didn’t, I was writing my reply and comments written then don’t appear, I think. But the quote you has specifically notes ‘British Personnel’ and you focus on the the Provisional IRA, where there were several other IRA factions. In addition, the RUC and the British forces apparently had a shoot to kill policy (I’m sure you’ve read John Stalker’s book in relation to that inquiry, which was squashed), which seems to be to be a rough equivalent of the drone attack on Awlaki and the people he was with.
This is not to claim you are wrong or to question what you wrote. It is more to explore the nature of the IRA parallel that Russell brings up. I’d also be interested in anyone wanting to give their take on wj’s questions at 6:56pm
Actually, Gary, I didn’t, I was writing my reply and comments written then don’t appear, I think. But the quote you has specifically notes ‘British Personnel’ and you focus on the the Provisional IRA, where there were several other IRA factions. In addition, the RUC and the British forces apparently had a shoot to kill policy (I’m sure you’ve read John Stalker’s book in relation to that inquiry, which was squashed), which seems to be to be a rough equivalent of the drone attack on Awlaki and the people he was with.
This is not to claim you are wrong or to question what you wrote. It is more to explore the nature of the IRA parallel that Russell brings up. I’d also be interested in anyone wanting to give their take on wj’s questions at 6:56pm
Lord Haw-Haw may be a better comparision than Goebbels (Tokyo Rose less so since she did not advertise her name and origin).
Lord Haw-Haw may be a better comparision than Goebbels (Tokyo Rose less so since she did not advertise her name and origin).
“Perhaps you haven’t noticed that “linked” is a complete weasel word that subsumes every possible “link,” such as wow, having been in the same room with someone, or talked to them, or exchanged a blog comment.”
Now, that is a sentiment I can enthusiastically endorse, having made that point myself on numerous occasions.
And while we’re on the subject, “Person of interest”. Just an excuse to treat somebody as a suspect, without admitting any of the legal rights attendant on that status have kicked in.
“Perhaps you haven’t noticed that “linked” is a complete weasel word that subsumes every possible “link,” such as wow, having been in the same room with someone, or talked to them, or exchanged a blog comment.”
Now, that is a sentiment I can enthusiastically endorse, having made that point myself on numerous occasions.
And while we’re on the subject, “Person of interest”. Just an excuse to treat somebody as a suspect, without admitting any of the legal rights attendant on that status have kicked in.
My understanding is that the IRA campaign (known as ‘the Long War’) restricted its attacks to British military infrastructure and economic targets.
First, I’m not really sure that an exact equivalence in the targets of terror is essential to my point.
That said, the IRA attacked, among other things, subway stations, Heathrow airport, and some pubs.
My point overall is not to draw an equivalence between the IRA and Al Qaeda.
My point overall is to try to make *what we are actually doing* a little more concrete.
We send unmanned drones flying around other countries, armed with rockets and bombs, to blow up individual people whom the executive has declared to be worthy of assassination.
Other people also get killed in the process. And, folks who live near where these persons of interest happen to be have to live with the idea that drones armed with bombs and rockets could be flying over their heads at any moment.
These *are not* countries or people that we are at war with. They are places that people we want to kill just happen to be residing.
In My Very Humble Opinion, it has been and continues to be a mistake to work from the premise that what we are involved in with Al Qaeda is a war. Because a state of war, for better or worse, gives license for a more or less unbridled use of force, and in our country specifically, at this point in time, gives the executive enormous room to act with little accountability.
We send mechanical angels of death around the world, with the intent of killing individuals with ordnance capable of annihilating a tank, or a small building.
Al Awlaki was killed with a Hellfire missile. Here is a Hellfire missile blowing up a person.
I’m not sure “targeted” is quite the right word to use.
There are people residing in this country who other nations could reasonably consider to be threats as dangerous as Al Awlaki was to us.
If it’s legitimate for us to kill Al Awlaki with freaking anti-armor missiles, it’s legitimate for them to do the same.
That’s the pragmatic objection.
The principled objection, which I haven’t even gotten into, is that it’s extremely problematic to give the President and/or the executive the authority to kill people anywhere on the planet based on their sense that those people deserve killing, without any due process or meaningful review or accountability.
My understanding is that the IRA campaign (known as ‘the Long War’) restricted its attacks to British military infrastructure and economic targets.
First, I’m not really sure that an exact equivalence in the targets of terror is essential to my point.
That said, the IRA attacked, among other things, subway stations, Heathrow airport, and some pubs.
My point overall is not to draw an equivalence between the IRA and Al Qaeda.
My point overall is to try to make *what we are actually doing* a little more concrete.
We send unmanned drones flying around other countries, armed with rockets and bombs, to blow up individual people whom the executive has declared to be worthy of assassination.
Other people also get killed in the process. And, folks who live near where these persons of interest happen to be have to live with the idea that drones armed with bombs and rockets could be flying over their heads at any moment.
These *are not* countries or people that we are at war with. They are places that people we want to kill just happen to be residing.
In My Very Humble Opinion, it has been and continues to be a mistake to work from the premise that what we are involved in with Al Qaeda is a war. Because a state of war, for better or worse, gives license for a more or less unbridled use of force, and in our country specifically, at this point in time, gives the executive enormous room to act with little accountability.
We send mechanical angels of death around the world, with the intent of killing individuals with ordnance capable of annihilating a tank, or a small building.
Al Awlaki was killed with a Hellfire missile. Here is a Hellfire missile blowing up a person.
I’m not sure “targeted” is quite the right word to use.
There are people residing in this country who other nations could reasonably consider to be threats as dangerous as Al Awlaki was to us.
If it’s legitimate for us to kill Al Awlaki with freaking anti-armor missiles, it’s legitimate for them to do the same.
That’s the pragmatic objection.
The principled objection, which I haven’t even gotten into, is that it’s extremely problematic to give the President and/or the executive the authority to kill people anywhere on the planet based on their sense that those people deserve killing, without any due process or meaningful review or accountability.
You say that Obama is “authorized to use his determination,” without any indication of what limits you think there might be on his authority. Do you think there are none (besides personal discretion, which, remember, is not a meaningful limit)? Do you think there should be some?
Your argument is deeply flawed because you’re speaking so broadly as to be hard to rebut without soliciting further detail. Any specifics you can offer in advance of us asking for them would be much appreciated.
Julian, there hasn’t been much case law on the AUMF, but Hamdi makes it clear that a United States citizen doesn’t merit special treatment if he has joined enemy forces, and the decisions don’t question the Constitutionality of the AUMF or question its breadth. There aren’t many other specifics to discuss. There have been a lot of wars where far more people have been killed by the United States than in the instance we’re talking about here without much interest in the specific status of the people being killed. Looks like a bridge that enemies could use to get to a target? Boom! Looks like a train carrying enemy supplies? Boom! Who was asking questions about the complicity of the fishermen under the bridge, or the driver of the train? You’re in the “enemy” territory, wearing a uniform? Boom! Who cares that you were 16 years old and just drafted?
The bad thing about the AUMF is that it doesn’t specify geographic boundaries, and the identity of the “enemy” seems up to the President to determine. The good thing is that it’s resulted in an attempt (by Obama) to kill only specific people who are actually furthering the agenda of people who are doing the harm. Certainly, there have been instances where civilians were mistakenly killed and things went wrong. But the “collateral damage” is much less with this kind of warfare than with the Iraq kind of warfare.
Would I favor changing the law? Yes, I already said so. I would include a sunset provision which would require Congress to reconsider the law at various intervals. That might be enough to spur questions as to whether the law has been inappropriately used, and would provide an opportunity to define the scope of the President’s authority more clearly. But, in the meantime, Obama “determines”.
You say that Obama is “authorized to use his determination,” without any indication of what limits you think there might be on his authority. Do you think there are none (besides personal discretion, which, remember, is not a meaningful limit)? Do you think there should be some?
Your argument is deeply flawed because you’re speaking so broadly as to be hard to rebut without soliciting further detail. Any specifics you can offer in advance of us asking for them would be much appreciated.
Julian, there hasn’t been much case law on the AUMF, but Hamdi makes it clear that a United States citizen doesn’t merit special treatment if he has joined enemy forces, and the decisions don’t question the Constitutionality of the AUMF or question its breadth. There aren’t many other specifics to discuss. There have been a lot of wars where far more people have been killed by the United States than in the instance we’re talking about here without much interest in the specific status of the people being killed. Looks like a bridge that enemies could use to get to a target? Boom! Looks like a train carrying enemy supplies? Boom! Who was asking questions about the complicity of the fishermen under the bridge, or the driver of the train? You’re in the “enemy” territory, wearing a uniform? Boom! Who cares that you were 16 years old and just drafted?
The bad thing about the AUMF is that it doesn’t specify geographic boundaries, and the identity of the “enemy” seems up to the President to determine. The good thing is that it’s resulted in an attempt (by Obama) to kill only specific people who are actually furthering the agenda of people who are doing the harm. Certainly, there have been instances where civilians were mistakenly killed and things went wrong. But the “collateral damage” is much less with this kind of warfare than with the Iraq kind of warfare.
Would I favor changing the law? Yes, I already said so. I would include a sunset provision which would require Congress to reconsider the law at various intervals. That might be enough to spur questions as to whether the law has been inappropriately used, and would provide an opportunity to define the scope of the President’s authority more clearly. But, in the meantime, Obama “determines”.
It’s exactly the right word. I’m not sure what your objection is, other than overkill, but it’s a technically correct usage.
Anything that helicopter did to an individual or small group would tend to look like overkill. I’ve never seen a Hellfire used to take out a single person walking in the open; that is generally frowned upon I think because they’re a lot more expensive (over $50k each, I think) than 30mm ammo. Both the missile and the 30mm chain-gun tend to make bloody rags out of a person, but it’s hard to get more dead than dead.
I’d guess it’s the overkill aspect you’re objecting to, but my guesses are frequently wrong.
It’s exactly the right word. I’m not sure what your objection is, other than overkill, but it’s a technically correct usage.
Anything that helicopter did to an individual or small group would tend to look like overkill. I’ve never seen a Hellfire used to take out a single person walking in the open; that is generally frowned upon I think because they’re a lot more expensive (over $50k each, I think) than 30mm ammo. Both the missile and the 30mm chain-gun tend to make bloody rags out of a person, but it’s hard to get more dead than dead.
I’d guess it’s the overkill aspect you’re objecting to, but my guesses are frequently wrong.
These *are not* countries or people that we are at war with. They are places that people we want to kill just happen to be residing.
Yes, these are. The people who are being killed are people we are at war with (except for people killed accidentally), if you interpret the AUMF (as the Supreme Court has) as the functional equivalent of a declaration of war. You don’t like the terms of the statute, but that doesn’t mean you get to redefine what the statute does.
These *are not* countries or people that we are at war with. They are places that people we want to kill just happen to be residing.
Yes, these are. The people who are being killed are people we are at war with (except for people killed accidentally), if you interpret the AUMF (as the Supreme Court has) as the functional equivalent of a declaration of war. You don’t like the terms of the statute, but that doesn’t mean you get to redefine what the statute does.
Well, sending cruise missiles into other countries not at war with us is hardly novel. Clinton did it, without even the fig leaf of an AUMF, and didn’t apologize either, when it turned out the pharmaceutical factory he blew up wasn’t really making chemical warfare agents.
Think nobody died back then, either?
I suppose we should be thankful that drones allow assassinations to be carried out without rearranging large areas of the landscape. At least you should be thankful of it if you happen to live in the house next door to somebody the government doesn’t like.
Well, sending cruise missiles into other countries not at war with us is hardly novel. Clinton did it, without even the fig leaf of an AUMF, and didn’t apologize either, when it turned out the pharmaceutical factory he blew up wasn’t really making chemical warfare agents.
Think nobody died back then, either?
I suppose we should be thankful that drones allow assassinations to be carried out without rearranging large areas of the landscape. At least you should be thankful of it if you happen to live in the house next door to somebody the government doesn’t like.
Oh? So now we’re at war with Yemen? Pakistan? Interesting. See, here’s the funny thing about that. The AUMF may be somewhat vague and leave room for weaseling about in terms of individuals and group membership, but the area where it’s actually pretty much unambiguous is nations. To wit:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons […]
Note the past tense. If a nation did not participate in the planning or commission; provide authorization or material aid; or harbor organizations or persons doing so while they were doing so… there’s really no way for you to claim that the AUMF allows for double-secret temporary declarations of war against them. You can make (IMO very unconvincing) arguments in re: fluid and weakly associative organization membership to argue that arbitrary individuals are covered, but nations? Not so much. Even if the Determiner determines what is best would be to be at war with Yemen, the AUMF doesn’t really have his back. So no, I’m gonna have to emphatically agree with russell. These are *not* countries we’re at war with.
<sigh>
No, it doesn’t. It really, really doesn’t. We are a nation of laws, and there are most certainly laws governing our conduct in war. You as a civilian have the luxury of sitting back in contented ignorance of them, but military personnel, as well as the civilian leadership thereof, are bound to understand and abide by them. Your apparent refusal (here and previously) to accept or even acknowledge this fact which should be very, very uncontroversial is extremely depressing.
Oh? So now we’re at war with Yemen? Pakistan? Interesting. See, here’s the funny thing about that. The AUMF may be somewhat vague and leave room for weaseling about in terms of individuals and group membership, but the area where it’s actually pretty much unambiguous is nations. To wit:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons […]
Note the past tense. If a nation did not participate in the planning or commission; provide authorization or material aid; or harbor organizations or persons doing so while they were doing so… there’s really no way for you to claim that the AUMF allows for double-secret temporary declarations of war against them. You can make (IMO very unconvincing) arguments in re: fluid and weakly associative organization membership to argue that arbitrary individuals are covered, but nations? Not so much. Even if the Determiner determines what is best would be to be at war with Yemen, the AUMF doesn’t really have his back. So no, I’m gonna have to emphatically agree with russell. These are *not* countries we’re at war with.
<sigh>
No, it doesn’t. It really, really doesn’t. We are a nation of laws, and there are most certainly laws governing our conduct in war. You as a civilian have the luxury of sitting back in contented ignorance of them, but military personnel, as well as the civilian leadership thereof, are bound to understand and abide by them. Your apparent refusal (here and previously) to accept or even acknowledge this fact which should be very, very uncontroversial is extremely depressing.
“People”, envy. I wrote “people.” I did not write “nations.” That was a big part of my point.
“People”, envy. I wrote “people.” I did not write “nations.” That was a big part of my point.
Oh, my. Missed the second part of russell’s conditional. I think the correct rebuttal to a possible assertion that these are people, as in individuals, that we’re at war with is that this runs afoul the conventional definition of war. The AUMF may authorize the use of military force against individuals, but it can’t authorize a declaration of war against them without fairly drastically altering the definition of war, which is something you’ve been desperately seeking to avoid. War, as it is understood in the law, is a condition existing between nation-states or substantially similar sub-national organisms. It has proven problematic to attempt to define war as encompassing a state of hostilities between non-state actors when said actors are organizations. When they are individuals, it is so far detached from the intent and conventional understandings of the laws and customs governing war as to be pure “War on Poverty” or “War on Drugs” material.
Oh, my. Missed the second part of russell’s conditional. I think the correct rebuttal to a possible assertion that these are people, as in individuals, that we’re at war with is that this runs afoul the conventional definition of war. The AUMF may authorize the use of military force against individuals, but it can’t authorize a declaration of war against them without fairly drastically altering the definition of war, which is something you’ve been desperately seeking to avoid. War, as it is understood in the law, is a condition existing between nation-states or substantially similar sub-national organisms. It has proven problematic to attempt to define war as encompassing a state of hostilities between non-state actors when said actors are organizations. When they are individuals, it is so far detached from the intent and conventional understandings of the laws and customs governing war as to be pure “War on Poverty” or “War on Drugs” material.
Basically, there’s a reason those of us arguing this generally should be viewed as a law enforcement matter do so. States make war on states. The laws in place reflect this. They pursue police actions, even if militarized, against individuals. The laws in place reflect this. Trying to do the former is a blatant end run around the latter laws for the convenience of the state.
Of course, one could always be a killjoy and point out that the AUMF has wiggle room that works against the executive as well as in its favor. It does, after all, only authorize all necessary and appropriate force. So even if it’s authorized military action against individuals, it still needs to be an appropriate action as governed by military necessity. And acts like this are, well, questionable. To put it mildly. If the judiciary and legislator were not both so utterly cowed as to let the imperial executive legislate and arbitrate so very often, that might even come back to bite it.
(I’ll not be holding my breath, however.)
Basically, there’s a reason those of us arguing this generally should be viewed as a law enforcement matter do so. States make war on states. The laws in place reflect this. They pursue police actions, even if militarized, against individuals. The laws in place reflect this. Trying to do the former is a blatant end run around the latter laws for the convenience of the state.
Of course, one could always be a killjoy and point out that the AUMF has wiggle room that works against the executive as well as in its favor. It does, after all, only authorize all necessary and appropriate force. So even if it’s authorized military action against individuals, it still needs to be an appropriate action as governed by military necessity. And acts like this are, well, questionable. To put it mildly. If the judiciary and legislator were not both so utterly cowed as to let the imperial executive legislate and arbitrate so very often, that might even come back to bite it.
(I’ll not be holding my breath, however.)
Also: “furthering the agenda of” will be added to the list along side “linked to”, “connected to”, and “affiliated with”.
You’re not helping your credibility even a little when you continue using weasel words like these to elide pertinent but inconvenient details.
Also: “furthering the agenda of” will be added to the list along side “linked to”, “connected to”, and “affiliated with”.
You’re not helping your credibility even a little when you continue using weasel words like these to elide pertinent but inconvenient details.
I’m not the one who wrote the law, envy.
Oh, for the days of the Battle of Gettysburg, where armies faced each other in a fair fight. Matthew Brady’s photographs don’t provide an evocative enough snuff film, apparently, for people to realize that “war” is a horrible concept, and the glorious battles of uniformed soldiers weren’t so lovely after all.
Perhaps it would be better if we merely declared war on Yemen for harboring people who sent bombs to the United States so that envy wouldn’t have to deal with weasel words and challenging concepts.
By the way, envy, I prefer that terrorism be considered a law enforcement problem just like you do. But Congress didn’t see it that way, and even though you believe (without citing a single authority) that something is amiss legally, the Executive has the responsibility to use Executive authority to protect the country.
Why is it so distasteful for you to put the blame where it belongs? There are three branches of government.
I’m not the one who wrote the law, envy.
Oh, for the days of the Battle of Gettysburg, where armies faced each other in a fair fight. Matthew Brady’s photographs don’t provide an evocative enough snuff film, apparently, for people to realize that “war” is a horrible concept, and the glorious battles of uniformed soldiers weren’t so lovely after all.
Perhaps it would be better if we merely declared war on Yemen for harboring people who sent bombs to the United States so that envy wouldn’t have to deal with weasel words and challenging concepts.
By the way, envy, I prefer that terrorism be considered a law enforcement problem just like you do. But Congress didn’t see it that way, and even though you believe (without citing a single authority) that something is amiss legally, the Executive has the responsibility to use Executive authority to protect the country.
Why is it so distasteful for you to put the blame where it belongs? There are three branches of government.
If the judiciary and legislator were not both so utterly cowed as to let the imperial executive legislate and arbitrate so very often, that might even come back to bite it.
“Cowed?” They’re afraid of the Executive branch? I think not! What they’re afraid of is making a decision that they themselves have to be accountable for. Much better to stick the Executive with apparently unfettered discretion and then complain when things don’t go well!
If the judiciary and legislator were not both so utterly cowed as to let the imperial executive legislate and arbitrate so very often, that might even come back to bite it.
“Cowed?” They’re afraid of the Executive branch? I think not! What they’re afraid of is making a decision that they themselves have to be accountable for. Much better to stick the Executive with apparently unfettered discretion and then complain when things don’t go well!
Okay, Provo IRA killings and bombings of non-military/non-governmental buildings, locations, and people include (I’m quoting Wikipedia, but won’t be noting all the incidents — a smaller number than indiscriminate bombings of civilians — I’m cutting because they don’t meet the criteria):
But that was only in London. So:
And so on.
LJ, respectfully, this is wrong:
That Gerry Adams made a nice propaganda statement doesn’t weigh against the facts of what was done, wouldn’t you agree?
Also, respectfully, what you first wrote was “the IRA concentrated their overseas attacks on military installations and visible representations of the government.”
Switching the latter to “economic targets” is not the same thing.
Meanwhile:
And, really, what politician would announce that they were deliberately targeting civilians? The Provo philosophy had little in common with al Qaeda, and Gerry Adams little in common with bin Laden.
Okay, Provo IRA killings and bombings of non-military/non-governmental buildings, locations, and people include (I’m quoting Wikipedia, but won’t be noting all the incidents — a smaller number than indiscriminate bombings of civilians — I’m cutting because they don’t meet the criteria):
But that was only in London. So:
And so on.
LJ, respectfully, this is wrong:
That Gerry Adams made a nice propaganda statement doesn’t weigh against the facts of what was done, wouldn’t you agree?
Also, respectfully, what you first wrote was “the IRA concentrated their overseas attacks on military installations and visible representations of the government.”
Switching the latter to “economic targets” is not the same thing.
Meanwhile:
And, really, what politician would announce that they were deliberately targeting civilians? The Provo philosophy had little in common with al Qaeda, and Gerry Adams little in common with bin Laden.
This article in the NYT doesn’t make Anwar al-Awlaki sound particularly important.
This article in the NYT doesn’t make Anwar al-Awlaki sound particularly important.
I’m not sure what your objection is, other than overkill, but it’s a technically correct usage.
Sorry, I should have stated this differently.
My objection is to assassinating people using means that are highly likely to kill folks other than, or in addition to, the person we mean to kill.
Whether we should in the in the assassination business in the first place, of course, is another question.
No, it doesn’t. It really, really doesn’t.
Sorry again. You are quite right, license for use of more or less unbridled force is several steps too far.
The scope of action allowed under the laws of war is broader than, and different from, the scope of action allowed otherwise. Enough so that the idea of being “at war” with individual people seems absurd. To me.
War is not that surgical. It’s impossible to “wage war” against individuals without dragging the whole neighborhood into the picture.
And there are lots and lots of reasons – reasons which have important implications for *our own* interests – for not muddying the line between at-war and not-at-war.
There is more at stake here than individual people like Al Awlaki. It’s important for the US to deal fairly and proportionately with the phenomenon of terrorist violence, and to be seen to be doing so.
Brookings puts the ratio of civilians to militants killed by drones at about 10 to 1.
That’s a lot of dead bystanders.
Does the policy of assassination-by-missile, fired from an unmanned remotely operated drone, make us more or less safe?
And all of this is a purely pragmatic calculus. I.e., it’s bad form to kill innocent people in the process of killing not-so-innocent people, because the hearts-and-minds thing is an important aspect of dealing with terrorism as a phenomenon.
The more principled issue – the question of allowing the executive – the President and his reports – to decide, without review, that specific individuals can be killed outside of the system of due process is *extremely problematic*. Justifying it by calling it war against individuals or bands of individuals is even more problematic.
It’s a bad idea.
I’m not sure what your objection is, other than overkill, but it’s a technically correct usage.
Sorry, I should have stated this differently.
My objection is to assassinating people using means that are highly likely to kill folks other than, or in addition to, the person we mean to kill.
Whether we should in the in the assassination business in the first place, of course, is another question.
No, it doesn’t. It really, really doesn’t.
Sorry again. You are quite right, license for use of more or less unbridled force is several steps too far.
The scope of action allowed under the laws of war is broader than, and different from, the scope of action allowed otherwise. Enough so that the idea of being “at war” with individual people seems absurd. To me.
War is not that surgical. It’s impossible to “wage war” against individuals without dragging the whole neighborhood into the picture.
And there are lots and lots of reasons – reasons which have important implications for *our own* interests – for not muddying the line between at-war and not-at-war.
There is more at stake here than individual people like Al Awlaki. It’s important for the US to deal fairly and proportionately with the phenomenon of terrorist violence, and to be seen to be doing so.
Brookings puts the ratio of civilians to militants killed by drones at about 10 to 1.
That’s a lot of dead bystanders.
Does the policy of assassination-by-missile, fired from an unmanned remotely operated drone, make us more or less safe?
And all of this is a purely pragmatic calculus. I.e., it’s bad form to kill innocent people in the process of killing not-so-innocent people, because the hearts-and-minds thing is an important aspect of dealing with terrorism as a phenomenon.
The more principled issue – the question of allowing the executive – the President and his reports – to decide, without review, that specific individuals can be killed outside of the system of due process is *extremely problematic*. Justifying it by calling it war against individuals or bands of individuals is even more problematic.
It’s a bad idea.
Gary and Russell,
If you recall, Britian is the empire on which the sun never set. Everyone else has now managed to get rid of British rule. The Irish are now the sole subjects unable to shake the yoke of the British. I think you really have to give the Irish some deference in their failing struggle to get out from under Britian.
Because, failing to keep struggling would just open the door to the French looking for a win this last quarter millenia.
And that has already happened: my understanding of the recent British-French military cooperation is really about the French seeking to take partial credit for the continued subjugation of N. Ireland.
So, sure the Irish targeted non-military targets, but they had no other options: being the last nation occupied by a dying empire has to hurt, and then to have the ignobility of France claiming credit? What would you do?
Gary and Russell,
If you recall, Britian is the empire on which the sun never set. Everyone else has now managed to get rid of British rule. The Irish are now the sole subjects unable to shake the yoke of the British. I think you really have to give the Irish some deference in their failing struggle to get out from under Britian.
Because, failing to keep struggling would just open the door to the French looking for a win this last quarter millenia.
And that has already happened: my understanding of the recent British-French military cooperation is really about the French seeking to take partial credit for the continued subjugation of N. Ireland.
So, sure the Irish targeted non-military targets, but they had no other options: being the last nation occupied by a dying empire has to hurt, and then to have the ignobility of France claiming credit? What would you do?
And, really, what politician would announce that they were deliberately targeting civilians?
Bin Laden and Awlaki?
Look, I read Russell’s argument as ‘look, the UK were faced with the equivalent situation and here is what they did, why can’t we do the same?” Yet there was apparently a shoot to kill order. The violations of civil rights were just as bad (remember the Guildford 5?) as using a drone to target someone. Size of ordinance has nothing to do with it. As for the principled issue, please see my posting of what Robert Farley wrote.
Also, I suspect there is a deixis problem here, as I wrote
the IRA concentrated their overseas attacks on military installations and visible representations of the government.
By overseas, I meant ‘overseas for the IRA’. None of the incidents you listed occurred outside the UK. In fact, all the events you listed were in England (there was only one bombing in Wales and Scotland, at an oil terminal in the Shetland Isles, when Queen Elizabeth was opening the facility). so my point was to highlight the IRAs policy in attacking British bases in Europe (or more specifically, Germany) That doesn’t even touch on the very debatable issue of whether warnings were issued for bombings that had a high likelihood of injuring civilians. So I have to respectfully suggest that you misread me and your lengthy comment, if read in isolation, ignores the long history of Irish-English relationships along with the constant attempts by the Irish to _militarily_ face the English and then says that one view is correct. I’m sure that is not your intent and I’m sure that you know that one of the constant tensions in the IRA was drawing the line between what was possible and what was not and this debate was framed as what was ‘military’.
You close by saying that the Provo philosophy is different from AQ, which is precisely the point, because it means that you can’t make the simple claim (and I think that Russell’s argument has this underlying assumption) that we should behave like the UK did.
Donald, I’m curious if you watched the Atran bloggingheads and what you thought.
And, really, what politician would announce that they were deliberately targeting civilians?
Bin Laden and Awlaki?
Look, I read Russell’s argument as ‘look, the UK were faced with the equivalent situation and here is what they did, why can’t we do the same?” Yet there was apparently a shoot to kill order. The violations of civil rights were just as bad (remember the Guildford 5?) as using a drone to target someone. Size of ordinance has nothing to do with it. As for the principled issue, please see my posting of what Robert Farley wrote.
Also, I suspect there is a deixis problem here, as I wrote
the IRA concentrated their overseas attacks on military installations and visible representations of the government.
By overseas, I meant ‘overseas for the IRA’. None of the incidents you listed occurred outside the UK. In fact, all the events you listed were in England (there was only one bombing in Wales and Scotland, at an oil terminal in the Shetland Isles, when Queen Elizabeth was opening the facility). so my point was to highlight the IRAs policy in attacking British bases in Europe (or more specifically, Germany) That doesn’t even touch on the very debatable issue of whether warnings were issued for bombings that had a high likelihood of injuring civilians. So I have to respectfully suggest that you misread me and your lengthy comment, if read in isolation, ignores the long history of Irish-English relationships along with the constant attempts by the Irish to _militarily_ face the English and then says that one view is correct. I’m sure that is not your intent and I’m sure that you know that one of the constant tensions in the IRA was drawing the line between what was possible and what was not and this debate was framed as what was ‘military’.
You close by saying that the Provo philosophy is different from AQ, which is precisely the point, because it means that you can’t make the simple claim (and I think that Russell’s argument has this underlying assumption) that we should behave like the UK did.
Donald, I’m curious if you watched the Atran bloggingheads and what you thought.
Look, I read Russell’s argument as ‘look, the UK were faced with the equivalent situation and here is what they did, why can’t we do the same?”
For the record, you misread my argument.
I don’t really care what the Brits did with the Provos. Or, at some level I care, but that isn’t really where I was going. I’m not sure I would pick the UK as the model for observing civil rights, especially when it comes to their actions wrt Ireland.
My argument, or point, was much much simpler:
Imagine some other country blowing up people they didn’t like, here, in the US. Imagine the people they were blowing up were bad actors, who that other country had some reason to see as a threat. But imagine the way that country went about insuring its own safety was to come here, to the US, and then assassinate those people by blowing them up.
Further, imagine that, in the process, they also blew up whoever else happened to be standing nearby. And imagine that happening in a ratio of 10 to 1, or even 1 to 1, or even 1 to 10.
Think of what that would look like, think of how it would affect your life. Think of how that would lead you to think and feel about that country.
Then think about what it would be like if, on top of that, there was bugger-all you could do about it, because the country blowing up your friends and neighbors in order to kill their enemies was sufficiently richer and more powerful than the US that they could simply do it and no-one could say or do much about it. More than that, imagine that they were sufficiently richer and more powerful that they could basically pressure your own government into helping them.
Imagine all of that. That’s my point. It’s not very complicated.
Is it really in our best interest, as a nation, to go around blowing up people all around the world, in order to assassinate some people who want to harm us.
I don’t think it is.
Look, I read Russell’s argument as ‘look, the UK were faced with the equivalent situation and here is what they did, why can’t we do the same?”
For the record, you misread my argument.
I don’t really care what the Brits did with the Provos. Or, at some level I care, but that isn’t really where I was going. I’m not sure I would pick the UK as the model for observing civil rights, especially when it comes to their actions wrt Ireland.
My argument, or point, was much much simpler:
Imagine some other country blowing up people they didn’t like, here, in the US. Imagine the people they were blowing up were bad actors, who that other country had some reason to see as a threat. But imagine the way that country went about insuring its own safety was to come here, to the US, and then assassinate those people by blowing them up.
Further, imagine that, in the process, they also blew up whoever else happened to be standing nearby. And imagine that happening in a ratio of 10 to 1, or even 1 to 1, or even 1 to 10.
Think of what that would look like, think of how it would affect your life. Think of how that would lead you to think and feel about that country.
Then think about what it would be like if, on top of that, there was bugger-all you could do about it, because the country blowing up your friends and neighbors in order to kill their enemies was sufficiently richer and more powerful than the US that they could simply do it and no-one could say or do much about it. More than that, imagine that they were sufficiently richer and more powerful that they could basically pressure your own government into helping them.
Imagine all of that. That’s my point. It’s not very complicated.
Is it really in our best interest, as a nation, to go around blowing up people all around the world, in order to assassinate some people who want to harm us.
I don’t think it is.
Perhaps it would be better if we merely declared war on Yemen for harboring people who sent bombs to the United States so that envy wouldn’t have to deal with weasel words and challenging concepts.
“Challenging concepts”. Heh. So the problem is that the people who complain about your using specious language to conflate things like “being provided operational support by” and “attending a mosque led by” are really merely too unimaginative and ignorant to deal with “challenging concepts”. ‘Cause it’s challenging to take vague, broad associations as givens rather than going the simplistic and lazy route of clarifying what the connections actually are, assessing their significance, and establishing how they relate to the law as written. I’ll keep that in mind.
But Congress didn’t see it that way, and even though you believe (without citing a single authority) that something is amiss legally, the Executive has the responsibility to use Executive authority to protect the country.
Yes. Congress saw fit to authorize military force in a defined set of circumstances. They did not write the law so as to provide the Executive the authority to use military force to prevent all future terrorist attacks, regardless of provenience. Which is why, ya know, it matters as to how those defined circumstances be interpreted.
I will note that it’s interesting to see you cite in the same breath Congressional authorization to use force to prevent recurrence of terrorist attacks and inherent Executive authority to do so. Either the Executive had the authority w/o Congress’s by-your-leave (in which case the first part of that sentence is meaningless) or the Executive needed Congress’s permission, in which the last part is misleading, to say nothing of your elision of the need to identify targets of military force as actually belonging to the groups that force was authorized against. And if it’s the former case, your assertions that the Executive doesn’t have carte blanche to assassinate whomsoever they please are thoroughly disingenuous.
You still haven’t explained what it means legally to be at war with individuals, BTW. Although I suppose I could point out that for all your calls for us to pay careful attention to the text of the AUMF (well, not too careful), I’m deeply fascinated by your insistence that we’re “at war” with them, given how nowhere in said bill is there any such declaration (and for good cause, seeing how they’re, ya know, individuals). To say nothing of your continued insistence that anything goes if we are at war with ’em, that the whole line about “necessary and appropriate” was meaningless fluff, that the laws of war don’t apply because Everything Changed!!!
See, here’s the problem with that. You’ve repeatedly shown yourself to be willfully ignorant of military legal matters. That’s fine. You have that luxury. Not everyone does. There are those people who need to know what the laws governing war are, and there are those people whose job it is to make sure they’re widely understood. I’ll flat-out say that you’re grotesquely wrong when you repeatedly make your blithe assertions that all we need to do is turn this into a military operation and all questions of proportionality, appropriate use of force, and rights are discarded. Flat-out wrong. Again, as a civilian you have the luxury of thusly being. Not everyone does. But it’s more than a little appalling that anyone at all would hold such an opinion.
Perhaps it would be better if we merely declared war on Yemen for harboring people who sent bombs to the United States so that envy wouldn’t have to deal with weasel words and challenging concepts.
“Challenging concepts”. Heh. So the problem is that the people who complain about your using specious language to conflate things like “being provided operational support by” and “attending a mosque led by” are really merely too unimaginative and ignorant to deal with “challenging concepts”. ‘Cause it’s challenging to take vague, broad associations as givens rather than going the simplistic and lazy route of clarifying what the connections actually are, assessing their significance, and establishing how they relate to the law as written. I’ll keep that in mind.
But Congress didn’t see it that way, and even though you believe (without citing a single authority) that something is amiss legally, the Executive has the responsibility to use Executive authority to protect the country.
Yes. Congress saw fit to authorize military force in a defined set of circumstances. They did not write the law so as to provide the Executive the authority to use military force to prevent all future terrorist attacks, regardless of provenience. Which is why, ya know, it matters as to how those defined circumstances be interpreted.
I will note that it’s interesting to see you cite in the same breath Congressional authorization to use force to prevent recurrence of terrorist attacks and inherent Executive authority to do so. Either the Executive had the authority w/o Congress’s by-your-leave (in which case the first part of that sentence is meaningless) or the Executive needed Congress’s permission, in which the last part is misleading, to say nothing of your elision of the need to identify targets of military force as actually belonging to the groups that force was authorized against. And if it’s the former case, your assertions that the Executive doesn’t have carte blanche to assassinate whomsoever they please are thoroughly disingenuous.
You still haven’t explained what it means legally to be at war with individuals, BTW. Although I suppose I could point out that for all your calls for us to pay careful attention to the text of the AUMF (well, not too careful), I’m deeply fascinated by your insistence that we’re “at war” with them, given how nowhere in said bill is there any such declaration (and for good cause, seeing how they’re, ya know, individuals). To say nothing of your continued insistence that anything goes if we are at war with ’em, that the whole line about “necessary and appropriate” was meaningless fluff, that the laws of war don’t apply because Everything Changed!!!
See, here’s the problem with that. You’ve repeatedly shown yourself to be willfully ignorant of military legal matters. That’s fine. You have that luxury. Not everyone does. There are those people who need to know what the laws governing war are, and there are those people whose job it is to make sure they’re widely understood. I’ll flat-out say that you’re grotesquely wrong when you repeatedly make your blithe assertions that all we need to do is turn this into a military operation and all questions of proportionality, appropriate use of force, and rights are discarded. Flat-out wrong. Again, as a civilian you have the luxury of thusly being. Not everyone does. But it’s more than a little appalling that anyone at all would hold such an opinion.
envy, I really don’t appreciate being called willfully ignorant, when I have cited sources, and you have not. In fact, all you do is cast aspersions and say “illegal!” “that’s not what it means!” “you are ignorant!”
If you have a definition for “necessary and appropriate” in this context (a definition not made up by you, preferably) let’s have it. If you want to cite a legal authority to explain the parameters of the AUMF, please do so. As it is, the wording of the law is very broad, and it gives the Executive a lot of discretion. You who are so knowledgeable about the scope and limits of military authority, let’s see your stuff. There are ZERO cites in any of your bloviations.
envy, I really don’t appreciate being called willfully ignorant, when I have cited sources, and you have not. In fact, all you do is cast aspersions and say “illegal!” “that’s not what it means!” “you are ignorant!”
If you have a definition for “necessary and appropriate” in this context (a definition not made up by you, preferably) let’s have it. If you want to cite a legal authority to explain the parameters of the AUMF, please do so. As it is, the wording of the law is very broad, and it gives the Executive a lot of discretion. You who are so knowledgeable about the scope and limits of military authority, let’s see your stuff. There are ZERO cites in any of your bloviations.
Think of what that would look like, think of how it would affect your life. Think of how that would lead you to think and feel about that country.
Don’t really know, except that maybe it would encourage me to deter the bad actors. Especially mass murderer bad actors.
Think of what that would look like, think of how it would affect your life. Think of how that would lead you to think and feel about that country.
Don’t really know, except that maybe it would encourage me to deter the bad actors. Especially mass murderer bad actors.
Come to think of it, if my neighbors were mass murderers, I would wonder why the hell they were in my neighborhood.
Which is, unfortunately, the situation in Yemen and Somalia (for example). There are some really nasty things going on there, and they don’t just have to do with the United States.
Come to think of it, if my neighbors were mass murderers, I would wonder why the hell they were in my neighborhood.
Which is, unfortunately, the situation in Yemen and Somalia (for example). There are some really nasty things going on there, and they don’t just have to do with the United States.
LJ, what offices have they run for?
I wouldn’t call them “politicians,” but if you categorize them that way, okay.
I wouldn’t make such a simple claim. Russell has clarified that he isn’t, either.
I hope we’ve untangled this now. 🙂
LJ, what offices have they run for?
I wouldn’t call them “politicians,” but if you categorize them that way, okay.
I wouldn’t make such a simple claim. Russell has clarified that he isn’t, either.
I hope we’ve untangled this now. 🙂
Don’t really know, except that maybe it would encourage me to deter the bad actors. Especially mass murderer bad actors.
That’s not how human beings react when outsiders start blowing up their neighbors. Instead, they tend to close ranks and assume that the outsiders are evil monsters who have no problem killing random innocent people. And let’s face it, after we blew up the a couple of random Afghan weddings, that assessment is basically correct.
The truth is, most people don’t know a damn thing about what their neighbors are doing, especially when we’re talking about terrorist cells communicating covertly and trying to stay under the radar.
I’m really astonished at the blithe acceptance of collective responsibility leading into acceptance for collective punishment. Although, after watching the exchange with envy, I really shouldn’t be.
Does anyone think that the neighbors of a guy who, say, managed the Bhopal disaster should have done ‘something’ to him? What? Should they have beaten him up? Keyed his car? Threatened him until he left town? Are we all supposed to learn, in great detail, the secret international effects of all our neighbors’ doings so that we can engage in rank vigilantism? Or are we now saying that it is not really wrong to kill neighbors BECAUSE they hadn’t discovered all the goings on? This is some really disturbing thinking….
Don’t really know, except that maybe it would encourage me to deter the bad actors. Especially mass murderer bad actors.
That’s not how human beings react when outsiders start blowing up their neighbors. Instead, they tend to close ranks and assume that the outsiders are evil monsters who have no problem killing random innocent people. And let’s face it, after we blew up the a couple of random Afghan weddings, that assessment is basically correct.
The truth is, most people don’t know a damn thing about what their neighbors are doing, especially when we’re talking about terrorist cells communicating covertly and trying to stay under the radar.
I’m really astonished at the blithe acceptance of collective responsibility leading into acceptance for collective punishment. Although, after watching the exchange with envy, I really shouldn’t be.
Does anyone think that the neighbors of a guy who, say, managed the Bhopal disaster should have done ‘something’ to him? What? Should they have beaten him up? Keyed his car? Threatened him until he left town? Are we all supposed to learn, in great detail, the secret international effects of all our neighbors’ doings so that we can engage in rank vigilantism? Or are we now saying that it is not really wrong to kill neighbors BECAUSE they hadn’t discovered all the goings on? This is some really disturbing thinking….
On the other hand, Turbulence, I don’t know where you live, but would you like Ted Bundy living in your neighborhood? It’s okay if he (other than the kind of crazy stuff he does sometimes) minds his own business and stays out of yours?
On the other hand, Turbulence, I don’t know where you live, but would you like Ted Bundy living in your neighborhood? It’s okay if he (other than the kind of crazy stuff he does sometimes) minds his own business and stays out of yours?
I live in an American city with a large Irish population that sent lots of cash and guns to the IRA back in the day, while the FBI, full of Irish agents, looked the other way. I guess terrorism is only wrong when performed by Arabs.
would you like Ted Bundy living in your neighborhood
Of course not. If I knew that one of my neighbors was a serial killer, I’d do something about it. But I can’t know if one of my neighbors is engaging in extremely secret communiques with a terrorist organization. I can’t spy on the internet activities of all my neighbors nor can I monitor all their postal deliveries. I just can’t know that. That is the nature of living in community. Do you actually live with other people? Because you seem to believe some really odd things about how much people can know about their neighbors.
I live in an American city with a large Irish population that sent lots of cash and guns to the IRA back in the day, while the FBI, full of Irish agents, looked the other way. I guess terrorism is only wrong when performed by Arabs.
would you like Ted Bundy living in your neighborhood
Of course not. If I knew that one of my neighbors was a serial killer, I’d do something about it. But I can’t know if one of my neighbors is engaging in extremely secret communiques with a terrorist organization. I can’t spy on the internet activities of all my neighbors nor can I monitor all their postal deliveries. I just can’t know that. That is the nature of living in community. Do you actually live with other people? Because you seem to believe some really odd things about how much people can know about their neighbors.
Sapient, just to be clear, are you asserting a positive moral obligation for everyone on Earth to monitor their neighbors and impose vigilante justice on them?
Sapient, just to be clear, are you asserting a positive moral obligation for everyone on Earth to monitor their neighbors and impose vigilante justice on them?
Did I say anything about imposing vigilante justice? No, of course not. I might be relieved if a mass murderer was removed from my neighborhood by the aggrieved foreign country representing the victims.
As to civilians who are killed alongside legitimate targets (if you think that any target is legitimate), of course that is a horrible consequence. If one is analyzing the cost of war, there is no such thing as “just war” if one decides that it is never permissible to risk harm to civilians. In that case, one must be a pacifist.
Are you a pacifist, Turbulence?
Did I say anything about imposing vigilante justice? No, of course not. I might be relieved if a mass murderer was removed from my neighborhood by the aggrieved foreign country representing the victims.
As to civilians who are killed alongside legitimate targets (if you think that any target is legitimate), of course that is a horrible consequence. If one is analyzing the cost of war, there is no such thing as “just war” if one decides that it is never permissible to risk harm to civilians. In that case, one must be a pacifist.
Are you a pacifist, Turbulence?
Did I say anything about imposing vigilante justice?
No, you said:
How exactly does one deter “bad actor” neighbors? I mean, you’ve described these people as mass murderers, so I’m guessing that asking nicely is not going to cut it. What can one do short of vigilantism to “deter” a terrorist who lives next door?
And you still haven’t answered the question: how are we to know whether our neighbors are involved in ‘bad actions’ overseas?
Did I say anything about imposing vigilante justice?
No, you said:
How exactly does one deter “bad actor” neighbors? I mean, you’ve described these people as mass murderers, so I’m guessing that asking nicely is not going to cut it. What can one do short of vigilantism to “deter” a terrorist who lives next door?
And you still haven’t answered the question: how are we to know whether our neighbors are involved in ‘bad actions’ overseas?
Well, for one thing, they might not be such great neighbors:
Well, for one thing, they might not be such great neighbors:
People like OBL or Awliki or actively hiding from a government are not going to rob banks or otherwise draw attention to themselves. Just like most of my Irish neighbors who sent cash and guns to blow up English people did it on the down low; they didn’t draw lots of attention to themselves.
So, again, how we are supposed to know that our neighbors are engaged in secret terrorist activities? And if we can’t know that, how are we supposed to deter them?
Plus, even when we can know that, how exactly are we supposed to deter people who can take on the government, without using vigilantism? I’m still confused by what mechanisms you had in mind; apparently, not vigilantism, but I really don’t think asking nicely over a cup of tea would be effective against mass murdering bank robbers.
People like OBL or Awliki or actively hiding from a government are not going to rob banks or otherwise draw attention to themselves. Just like most of my Irish neighbors who sent cash and guns to blow up English people did it on the down low; they didn’t draw lots of attention to themselves.
So, again, how we are supposed to know that our neighbors are engaged in secret terrorist activities? And if we can’t know that, how are we supposed to deter them?
Plus, even when we can know that, how exactly are we supposed to deter people who can take on the government, without using vigilantism? I’m still confused by what mechanisms you had in mind; apparently, not vigilantism, but I really don’t think asking nicely over a cup of tea would be effective against mass murdering bank robbers.
So you’re fine with mass murdering bank robbers living next door to you? You’re surprised when somebody else does something about them when they’ve gotten so strong that they can take on the government?
Oh, but it’s fine when mass murdering bank robbers take on the government, maybe, in your world. If it were my world, I’m not sure I’d be fine with that. And I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if people representing the victims took violent recourse.
Again, are you a pacifist, Turbulence? Because, if you are, I certainly respect that. But you have to figure out what your policy would be against mass murderer bank robbers who nobody seems to be able to do something about. Or even if you’re not a pacifist, what do you propose?
So you’re fine with mass murdering bank robbers living next door to you? You’re surprised when somebody else does something about them when they’ve gotten so strong that they can take on the government?
Oh, but it’s fine when mass murdering bank robbers take on the government, maybe, in your world. If it were my world, I’m not sure I’d be fine with that. And I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if people representing the victims took violent recourse.
Again, are you a pacifist, Turbulence? Because, if you are, I certainly respect that. But you have to figure out what your policy would be against mass murderer bank robbers who nobody seems to be able to do something about. Or even if you’re not a pacifist, what do you propose?
sapient, would you mind answering the questions I asked in my 10:12 pm post? I’ve tried to answer the questions you’ve asked me, but so far, you haven’t answered the questions I’ve raised.
Thanks.
sapient, would you mind answering the questions I asked in my 10:12 pm post? I’ve tried to answer the questions you’ve asked me, but so far, you haven’t answered the questions I’ve raised.
Thanks.
Okay, Turb. I will answer your hypothetical from Wonderland:
If they are secret terrorists, you don’t know that they’re terrorists. If you don’t know, you can’t deter (although perhaps you would generally hope that your government had a clue, and if you knew that your government didn’t have a clue). If they’re not secret, and they can take on the government, maybe you’re happy that someone who’s stronger than they are can take them out? Maybe not, but I would be.
Now, you answer my questions. Are you a pacifist? Do you believe that it is ever justified to risk civilian lives in order to kill people who are enemies in a war?
Okay, Turb. I will answer your hypothetical from Wonderland:
If they are secret terrorists, you don’t know that they’re terrorists. If you don’t know, you can’t deter (although perhaps you would generally hope that your government had a clue, and if you knew that your government didn’t have a clue). If they’re not secret, and they can take on the government, maybe you’re happy that someone who’s stronger than they are can take them out? Maybe not, but I would be.
Now, you answer my questions. Are you a pacifist? Do you believe that it is ever justified to risk civilian lives in order to kill people who are enemies in a war?
envy, I really don’t appreciate being called willfully ignorant, when I have cited sources, and you have not.
[…]
If you have a definition for “necessary and appropriate” in this context (a definition not made up by you, preferably) let’s have it.
If you need hand-holding, here. Knock yourself out. There’s plenty of other applicable treaties and regulations governing conduct in war, but that’s as good a starting place as any.
…this is pretty much why I judge you to be willfully ignorant. The law of war isn’t exactly obscure and secret. But rather than looking to it in order to make the case that In War Anything Goes, or Oh Yes He So Totally IS A Combatant, you’ve again pulled out the text of the AUMF, as if its authorization to use military force somehow removes standing legal limits on how that force may be applied. It doesn’t. And it’s not even pretending to, as is made clear as day by its “necessary and appropriate” verbiage. The President is bound by the laws of war. Every troop under his command is as well. Your condescending allusions to “everything changing” and “new war” don’t change that. The military of the United States remains bound by the laws of war. You obviously don’t like this fact, but you don’t have to. You’ve not sworn an oath to accept this. Some people have.
envy, I really don’t appreciate being called willfully ignorant, when I have cited sources, and you have not.
[…]
If you have a definition for “necessary and appropriate” in this context (a definition not made up by you, preferably) let’s have it.
If you need hand-holding, here. Knock yourself out. There’s plenty of other applicable treaties and regulations governing conduct in war, but that’s as good a starting place as any.
…this is pretty much why I judge you to be willfully ignorant. The law of war isn’t exactly obscure and secret. But rather than looking to it in order to make the case that In War Anything Goes, or Oh Yes He So Totally IS A Combatant, you’ve again pulled out the text of the AUMF, as if its authorization to use military force somehow removes standing legal limits on how that force may be applied. It doesn’t. And it’s not even pretending to, as is made clear as day by its “necessary and appropriate” verbiage. The President is bound by the laws of war. Every troop under his command is as well. Your condescending allusions to “everything changing” and “new war” don’t change that. The military of the United States remains bound by the laws of war. You obviously don’t like this fact, but you don’t have to. You’ve not sworn an oath to accept this. Some people have.
your hypothetical from Wonderland
The innocent people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and God knows where else who have been exterminated by the US are not hypothetical. They were real human beings.
If they are secret terrorists, you don’t know that they’re terrorists. If you don’t know, you can’t deter
Ah, OK. In that case, your earlier comment where you wrote “it would encourage me to deter the bad actors. Especially mass murderer bad actors” was just completely irrelevant to cases like OBL or Awliki or the many many Irish folk who funded terrorism from the US.
In any event, you never answered the other questions I raised:
I mean, if I knew that my neighbors were assembling cash and guns for terrorism, what should I have done short of vigilantism (this is not hypothetical: I have lived in neighborhoods that sent lots of cash/guns to the IRA)?
Now, you answer my questions.
I find it helps to occasionally say “please”. Can you do that?
Are you a pacifist?
No.
Do you believe that it is ever justified to risk civilian lives in order to kill people who are enemies in a war?
Is it ever justified? Sure. That doesn’t mean that it is always justified or that it is justified right now.
Moreover, ‘kill people who are enemies in war’ isn’t really something I can make sense of. We have laws of war and doctrines that describe proportionality and double effect and all manner of complex things that you don’t seem familiar with. Under such systems, questions about whether you can kill ‘enemies’ can become quite complex, and I’m not even certain that I think such systems are optimal to begin with….
your hypothetical from Wonderland
The innocent people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and God knows where else who have been exterminated by the US are not hypothetical. They were real human beings.
If they are secret terrorists, you don’t know that they’re terrorists. If you don’t know, you can’t deter
Ah, OK. In that case, your earlier comment where you wrote “it would encourage me to deter the bad actors. Especially mass murderer bad actors” was just completely irrelevant to cases like OBL or Awliki or the many many Irish folk who funded terrorism from the US.
In any event, you never answered the other questions I raised:
I mean, if I knew that my neighbors were assembling cash and guns for terrorism, what should I have done short of vigilantism (this is not hypothetical: I have lived in neighborhoods that sent lots of cash/guns to the IRA)?
Now, you answer my questions.
I find it helps to occasionally say “please”. Can you do that?
Are you a pacifist?
No.
Do you believe that it is ever justified to risk civilian lives in order to kill people who are enemies in a war?
Is it ever justified? Sure. That doesn’t mean that it is always justified or that it is justified right now.
Moreover, ‘kill people who are enemies in war’ isn’t really something I can make sense of. We have laws of war and doctrines that describe proportionality and double effect and all manner of complex things that you don’t seem familiar with. Under such systems, questions about whether you can kill ‘enemies’ can become quite complex, and I’m not even certain that I think such systems are optimal to begin with….
We have laws of war and doctrines that describe proportionality and double effect and all manner of complex things that you don’t seem familiar with. Under such systems, questions about whether you can kill ‘enemies’ can become quite complex, and I’m not even certain that I think such systems are optimal to begin with….
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Operational Law is a tangle. It’s complex, it’s involved, and it’s sure as hell not “Anything Goes”.
We have laws of war and doctrines that describe proportionality and double effect and all manner of complex things that you don’t seem familiar with. Under such systems, questions about whether you can kill ‘enemies’ can become quite complex, and I’m not even certain that I think such systems are optimal to begin with….
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Operational Law is a tangle. It’s complex, it’s involved, and it’s sure as hell not “Anything Goes”.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Operational Law is a tangle. It’s complex, it’s involved, and it’s sure as hell not “Anything Goes”.
I’m glad we’ve got that straight.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Operational Law is a tangle. It’s complex, it’s involved, and it’s sure as hell not “Anything Goes”.
I’m glad we’ve got that straight.
“And I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if people representing the victims took violent recourse.”
“Wouldn’t be surprised” means what exactly? You wouldn’t be surprised if foreigners starting blowing up all the war criminals that live in the US, some of them citizens and some not? Some might even be high ranking officials, past or present. Would this be a good thing for foreigners to do?
Here are some that have been in Turb’s neck of the woods–
link
And that’s just the non-American ones. Anyone keep track of where Kissinger is?
“And I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if people representing the victims took violent recourse.”
“Wouldn’t be surprised” means what exactly? You wouldn’t be surprised if foreigners starting blowing up all the war criminals that live in the US, some of them citizens and some not? Some might even be high ranking officials, past or present. Would this be a good thing for foreigners to do?
Here are some that have been in Turb’s neck of the woods–
link
And that’s just the non-American ones. Anyone keep track of where Kissinger is?
You know, sapient, I’m impressed. I think this is the first time in all the years I’ve commented on ObWi that I’m going to walk away from an argument in mid-stride because it’s that glaringly obvious that I have better, more meaningful things to do with my downtime.
Enjoy the warm fuzzy feeling of having vanquished me, and thereby having proved that you’re totally right, and I’m an ignorant dissembler with no idea what I’m talking about.
You know, sapient, I’m impressed. I think this is the first time in all the years I’ve commented on ObWi that I’m going to walk away from an argument in mid-stride because it’s that glaringly obvious that I have better, more meaningful things to do with my downtime.
Enjoy the warm fuzzy feeling of having vanquished me, and thereby having proved that you’re totally right, and I’m an ignorant dissembler with no idea what I’m talking about.
No, Donald. I wouldn’t be surprised. Who said anything about “good”?
No, Donald. I wouldn’t be surprised. Who said anything about “good”?
“Anyone keep track of where Kissinger is?”
Popping into his friends’ parties to tell them to tell Chris Christie to run for President.
Mostly in NYC.
He’s also spending time incognito at Occupy Wall Street.
Okay, I’m making that last part up.
“Anyone keep track of where Kissinger is?”
Popping into his friends’ parties to tell them to tell Chris Christie to run for President.
Mostly in NYC.
He’s also spending time incognito at Occupy Wall Street.
Okay, I’m making that last part up.
Well, sapient, we went off on this tangent where you seemed to be defending US actions in Somalia on the grounds that people there shouldn’t be surprised to see us blowing people up in their country. I had the impression you were defending our actions, so I wondered if it cut both ways. I guess not.
Well, sapient, we went off on this tangent where you seemed to be defending US actions in Somalia on the grounds that people there shouldn’t be surprised to see us blowing people up in their country. I had the impression you were defending our actions, so I wondered if it cut both ways. I guess not.
Kissinger:
Also, he’s back to socializing with Conrad Black.
He was at the Metropolitan Opera last week, too. Picture!
It’s good to be a war criminal and live to 88 in luxury and respect in the United States.
All he needed was a decent interval.
Kissinger:
Also, he’s back to socializing with Conrad Black.
He was at the Metropolitan Opera last week, too. Picture!
It’s good to be a war criminal and live to 88 in luxury and respect in the United States.
All he needed was a decent interval.
What’s mildly interesting about this is that a huge fuss is being made over the US government murdering a civilian, because he happened to have American citizenship.
Pardon me, good people, but does that mean that it’s OK for the US government to murder civilians if they happen to be foreigners?
Of course not, you will say, but the grim fact is that murders of this kind have been taking place almost every day for the last few decades (not drones, of course, before 2002, but every other kind of murders).
The United States is a terrorist state which arrogates to itself the right to murder civilians in order to intimidate other civilians into submission.
You don’t like that, deal with it. sapient deals with it by cheering on the murderers. Fair enough. Lots of people cheer murderers. But how do the rest of you deal with it?
What’s mildly interesting about this is that a huge fuss is being made over the US government murdering a civilian, because he happened to have American citizenship.
Pardon me, good people, but does that mean that it’s OK for the US government to murder civilians if they happen to be foreigners?
Of course not, you will say, but the grim fact is that murders of this kind have been taking place almost every day for the last few decades (not drones, of course, before 2002, but every other kind of murders).
The United States is a terrorist state which arrogates to itself the right to murder civilians in order to intimidate other civilians into submission.
You don’t like that, deal with it. sapient deals with it by cheering on the murderers. Fair enough. Lots of people cheer murderers. But how do the rest of you deal with it?
The Creator,
I sort of had the same feeling (protection from being murdered by drones is equally afforded to citizens and non-citizens under both the 5th amendment and the laws of war), but minus the obnoxious tone. If you regularly read ObWi, you should be aware that most of the people here objecting to murdering a US citizen by drone have previously and loudly objected to murdering non-citizens by drone. Indeed, even in this very thread, multiple people have clearly objected to murdering non-citizens by drone (or other means). In fact, no recent comment has made the citizen/non-citizen distinction.
So ObWi might not be the most reasonable place to be reprimanding the commenters for having focused on the citizenship part.
The Creator,
I sort of had the same feeling (protection from being murdered by drones is equally afforded to citizens and non-citizens under both the 5th amendment and the laws of war), but minus the obnoxious tone. If you regularly read ObWi, you should be aware that most of the people here objecting to murdering a US citizen by drone have previously and loudly objected to murdering non-citizens by drone. Indeed, even in this very thread, multiple people have clearly objected to murdering non-citizens by drone (or other means). In fact, no recent comment has made the citizen/non-citizen distinction.
So ObWi might not be the most reasonable place to be reprimanding the commenters for having focused on the citizenship part.
So you’re fine with mass murdering bank robbers living next door to you?
The line of argument appears to have gang agley.
So you’re fine with mass murdering bank robbers living next door to you?
The line of argument appears to have gang agley.
I heard he was looking to score good position at the free Radiohead concert.
I heard he was looking to score good position at the free Radiohead concert.
“Julian, there hasn’t been much case law on the AUMF, but Hamdi makes it clear that a United States citizen doesn’t merit special treatment if he has joined enemy forces, and the decisions don’t question the Constitutionality of the AUMF or question its breadth.”
Sorry that I was late to respond, but I wanted to say: I don’t know what you mean by “special treatment.” Do you mean “special good?” Or “special bad?” Or do you mean “special” as in “treatment like that received by other U.S. citizens accused of crimes?”
I will quote the wikipedia page on Hamdi:
“Justice O’Connor wrote a plurality opinion representing the Court’s judgment, which was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Breyer and Kennedy. O’Connor wrote that although Congress had expressly authorized the detention of enemy combatants in its Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11, due process required that Hamdi have a meaningful opportunity to challenge his enemy combatant status. However, Justice O’Connor used the three-prong test of Mathews v. Eldridge to limit the due process to be received. This required notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard, though because of the burden upon the Executive of ongoing military conflict, normal procedural protections such as placing the burden of proof on the government or the ban on hearsay need not apply. O’Connor suggested the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to the AR 190-8 to determine whether a detainee merited continued detention as an enemy combatant. The United States Department of Defense created Combatant Status Review Tribunals in response, modeling them after the AR 190-8. O’Connor did not write at length on Hamdi’s right to an attorney, because by the time the Court rendered its decision, Hamdi had already been granted access to one. However, O’Connor did write that Hamdi “unquestionably has the right to access to counsel in connection with the proceedings on remand.” The plurality held that judges need not be involved in reviewing these cases, rather only an impartial decision maker was required.”
Further paraphrasing the WP page, 8 of the 9 justices agreed that the executive couldn’t indefinitely hold a U.S. citizen without due process protections.
So, where in all of this do you find support for your claim that Hamdi merited no special treatment? Or where do you see support for due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens?
If I knew what you meant by “special treatment” I would be better able to tell you whether your argument has any support in the law.
These are the sorts of specifics I was referring to needing more of in my last post. Thank you for your response!
“Julian, there hasn’t been much case law on the AUMF, but Hamdi makes it clear that a United States citizen doesn’t merit special treatment if he has joined enemy forces, and the decisions don’t question the Constitutionality of the AUMF or question its breadth.”
Sorry that I was late to respond, but I wanted to say: I don’t know what you mean by “special treatment.” Do you mean “special good?” Or “special bad?” Or do you mean “special” as in “treatment like that received by other U.S. citizens accused of crimes?”
I will quote the wikipedia page on Hamdi:
“Justice O’Connor wrote a plurality opinion representing the Court’s judgment, which was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Breyer and Kennedy. O’Connor wrote that although Congress had expressly authorized the detention of enemy combatants in its Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11, due process required that Hamdi have a meaningful opportunity to challenge his enemy combatant status. However, Justice O’Connor used the three-prong test of Mathews v. Eldridge to limit the due process to be received. This required notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard, though because of the burden upon the Executive of ongoing military conflict, normal procedural protections such as placing the burden of proof on the government or the ban on hearsay need not apply. O’Connor suggested the Department of Defense create fact-finding tribunals similar to the AR 190-8 to determine whether a detainee merited continued detention as an enemy combatant. The United States Department of Defense created Combatant Status Review Tribunals in response, modeling them after the AR 190-8. O’Connor did not write at length on Hamdi’s right to an attorney, because by the time the Court rendered its decision, Hamdi had already been granted access to one. However, O’Connor did write that Hamdi “unquestionably has the right to access to counsel in connection with the proceedings on remand.” The plurality held that judges need not be involved in reviewing these cases, rather only an impartial decision maker was required.”
Further paraphrasing the WP page, 8 of the 9 justices agreed that the executive couldn’t indefinitely hold a U.S. citizen without due process protections.
So, where in all of this do you find support for your claim that Hamdi merited no special treatment? Or where do you see support for due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens?
If I knew what you meant by “special treatment” I would be better able to tell you whether your argument has any support in the law.
These are the sorts of specifics I was referring to needing more of in my last post. Thank you for your response!
Julian,
Hamdi was found to be eligible for “enemy combatant” status, for the purposes of the AUMF, even though he was a citizen. That was my point.
Because he was a citizen, the question before the court was (after the court found that he was an enemy combatant) whether the Executive has the authority to detain citizens who qualify as enemy combatants, and what process is due in such a case. There was no opportunity or need for them to determine whether Hamdi, a citizen, would receive more protection than non-citizens. Then in Rasul v. Bush, the court considered the question of whether federal courts have jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus petitions of non-citizen detainees of United States held in military custody (in Guantanamo). It held that they do.
In other words, to the extent that the Court has considered it, it has held that citizens and non-citizens can be “enemy combatants” and that both categories have the right to question their detention.
Neither case talked about whether due process was to be accorded before being killed on the battlefield. I think the relevant question would be (in this case) whether a drone attack targeting a specific person is a “killing on the battlefield”, not whether the target is a citizen or non-citizen.
Julian,
Hamdi was found to be eligible for “enemy combatant” status, for the purposes of the AUMF, even though he was a citizen. That was my point.
Because he was a citizen, the question before the court was (after the court found that he was an enemy combatant) whether the Executive has the authority to detain citizens who qualify as enemy combatants, and what process is due in such a case. There was no opportunity or need for them to determine whether Hamdi, a citizen, would receive more protection than non-citizens. Then in Rasul v. Bush, the court considered the question of whether federal courts have jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus petitions of non-citizen detainees of United States held in military custody (in Guantanamo). It held that they do.
In other words, to the extent that the Court has considered it, it has held that citizens and non-citizens can be “enemy combatants” and that both categories have the right to question their detention.
Neither case talked about whether due process was to be accorded before being killed on the battlefield. I think the relevant question would be (in this case) whether a drone attack targeting a specific person is a “killing on the battlefield”, not whether the target is a citizen or non-citizen.
At the risk of playing yet another round of “stick, meet dead horse”, I thought this piece by the always-highly-readable Thoreau at High Clearing was spot on.
At the risk of playing yet another round of “stick, meet dead horse”, I thought this piece by the always-highly-readable Thoreau at High Clearing was spot on.
Conor Friedersdorf:
Does everyone know who David Shipler is? In any case, try his problems with this, as well.
Bits:
Yes.
Conor Friedersdorf:
Does everyone know who David Shipler is? In any case, try his problems with this, as well.
Bits:
Yes.
Which is every square inch of planet earth, right?
Which is every square inch of planet earth, right?
For what it’s worth, I agree that the legal opinion justifying the action against al- Awlaki shouldn’t be secret. For that I will criticize Obama.
For what it’s worth, I agree that the legal opinion justifying the action against al- Awlaki shouldn’t be secret. For that I will criticize Obama.
Good to agree on at least a few things, sapient. Thank you.
Good to agree on at least a few things, sapient. Thank you.
There’s more common ground than one would think by looking at some of these discussions, Gary.
Anyway, in case you haven’t read it lately, Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, especially the third section on the political question doctrine, provides some clues as to some of the ground the legal opinion probably covers.
There’s more common ground than one would think by looking at some of these discussions, Gary.
Anyway, in case you haven’t read it lately, Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, especially the third section on the political question doctrine, provides some clues as to some of the ground the legal opinion probably covers.
So – occasional letter bombs, sent by the British government, blowing up people here in the US. Sometimes people who supported IRA terrorism, sometimes folks who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Collateral damage as it were. But, at least some of the time, folks who were actively involved in planning or supporting acts of terrorist violence against British citizens.
Would that be wrong? If so, why?
Russell raised this hypo a couple of times. Here’s what distinguishes An-a-Al in Yemen from Seamus in Boston: Yemen is a country in name only with no internal law enforcement apparatus, no treaty with the US and the terrain and people are so hostile that there simply is no US law enforcement agency configured and trained to make a forced entry and arrest An-a-Al.
If A-a-A were in western Europe or many other places in the world, this *would* be an intelligence/law enforcement issue. He isn’t and therefore it isn’t. Indeed, much of the discussion opposing his assassination was bottomed on his relative innocence or the lack of compelling proof of guilt, which begs the question: so what, what if he’s guilty as sin and everyone agrees? The consensus answer here is: so what, it’s still law enforcement, etc, etc.
Russell: I have a couple of unanswered questions from the other side:
1. Which law enforcement agency would you send into Yemen to capture A-a-A and why?
2. Suppose it was proven conclusively that an American citizen, using Yemen as a refuge, had successfully targeted and caused the death of American citizens and that he was continuing to do so? Suppose further that no US law enforcement entity has the training, wherewithal, etc to enter Yemen successfully and capture this person? What’s a president to do?
So – occasional letter bombs, sent by the British government, blowing up people here in the US. Sometimes people who supported IRA terrorism, sometimes folks who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Collateral damage as it were. But, at least some of the time, folks who were actively involved in planning or supporting acts of terrorist violence against British citizens.
Would that be wrong? If so, why?
Russell raised this hypo a couple of times. Here’s what distinguishes An-a-Al in Yemen from Seamus in Boston: Yemen is a country in name only with no internal law enforcement apparatus, no treaty with the US and the terrain and people are so hostile that there simply is no US law enforcement agency configured and trained to make a forced entry and arrest An-a-Al.
If A-a-A were in western Europe or many other places in the world, this *would* be an intelligence/law enforcement issue. He isn’t and therefore it isn’t. Indeed, much of the discussion opposing his assassination was bottomed on his relative innocence or the lack of compelling proof of guilt, which begs the question: so what, what if he’s guilty as sin and everyone agrees? The consensus answer here is: so what, it’s still law enforcement, etc, etc.
Russell: I have a couple of unanswered questions from the other side:
1. Which law enforcement agency would you send into Yemen to capture A-a-A and why?
2. Suppose it was proven conclusively that an American citizen, using Yemen as a refuge, had successfully targeted and caused the death of American citizens and that he was continuing to do so? Suppose further that no US law enforcement entity has the training, wherewithal, etc to enter Yemen successfully and capture this person? What’s a president to do?
How do you suggest that be done outside a courtroom?
How do you suggest that be done outside a courtroom?
McK, your questions assume that there must be some lawful, legitimate, and/or permissible way for the US to get their hands on Al Awlaki.
Never mind lawful, legitimate, and/or permissible. Your question assumes that there is some way for the US to get their hands on Al Awlaki that simply nets out in our favor, when balanced against all of the possible negative consequences that might flow from it.
That might not always be true.
Some bad actors get away.
What’s a President to do? What he is sworn to do, which is faithfully execute the laws of the United States of America.
And for the record, my hypothetical wasn’t about the Provos or the UK. It wasn’t meant to draw an analogy between the Provos and Al Qaeda, or between the US and the UK, or between Yemen and Ireland.
To reiterate: it was meant to do one very, very, very simple thing.
It was meant to prompt you to consider how you would respond to some other country blowing up people in your neighborhood.
No-one has ventured a reply to that. Other than sapient, of course, who apparently would find it congenial, provided that the people blown up were mass murderers, serial killers, or bank robbers.
McK, your questions assume that there must be some lawful, legitimate, and/or permissible way for the US to get their hands on Al Awlaki.
Never mind lawful, legitimate, and/or permissible. Your question assumes that there is some way for the US to get their hands on Al Awlaki that simply nets out in our favor, when balanced against all of the possible negative consequences that might flow from it.
That might not always be true.
Some bad actors get away.
What’s a President to do? What he is sworn to do, which is faithfully execute the laws of the United States of America.
And for the record, my hypothetical wasn’t about the Provos or the UK. It wasn’t meant to draw an analogy between the Provos and Al Qaeda, or between the US and the UK, or between Yemen and Ireland.
To reiterate: it was meant to do one very, very, very simple thing.
It was meant to prompt you to consider how you would respond to some other country blowing up people in your neighborhood.
No-one has ventured a reply to that. Other than sapient, of course, who apparently would find it congenial, provided that the people blown up were mass murderers, serial killers, or bank robbers.
How do you suggest that be done outside a courtroom?
There are many techniques for proving things that work outside a courtroom. For example, one could prove it by induction. Or better yet, proof by contradiction: we exterminate Awliki, and then, when terrorism stops forever, we know that he was the cause.
How do you suggest that be done outside a courtroom?
There are many techniques for proving things that work outside a courtroom. For example, one could prove it by induction. Or better yet, proof by contradiction: we exterminate Awliki, and then, when terrorism stops forever, we know that he was the cause.
Or better yet, proof by contradiction: we exterminate Awliki, and then, when terrorism stops forever, we know that he was the cause.
And if it doesn’t, then try, try again.
Or better yet, proof by contradiction: we exterminate Awliki, and then, when terrorism stops forever, we know that he was the cause.
And if it doesn’t, then try, try again.
russell: What’s a President to do? What he is sworn to do, which is faithfully execute the laws of the United States of America.
Yes, and Obama has faithfully executed the Authorization to Use Military Force, Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23], Sept. 18, 2001.
russell, my serious point about blowing people up in my neighborhood was this: If my neighbors were the Shabab Islamic insurgent group who was blocking starving people from getting food, or Yemeni militants who had just driven out 100,000 civilians, I would be quite happy to have them blown up.
russell: What’s a President to do? What he is sworn to do, which is faithfully execute the laws of the United States of America.
Yes, and Obama has faithfully executed the Authorization to Use Military Force, Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23], Sept. 18, 2001.
russell, my serious point about blowing people up in my neighborhood was this: If my neighbors were the Shabab Islamic insurgent group who was blocking starving people from getting food, or Yemeni militants who had just driven out 100,000 civilians, I would be quite happy to have them blown up.
I love how when it comes to stopping a genocide in Rwanda or Darfur or ethnic cleaning in central Africa, the US government is all ‘screw our treaty obligations, there’s no way we could do that…I mean, who would pay for the gas for our airplane?!’ but when some local Islamist group in a failed state with neither the interest nor the capability of launching international operations decides to goose up their recruiting by declaring that they’re actually a local Al Queda franchise, BOOM! Legal problems with invading a foreign country? Gone. What about sovereignty? Someone said the word terrorism, so that no longer matters. Who will pay for all this? No problem! Predators are free! Questions about targeting accuracy? Meh, the CIA will do fine; they know all about East Africa. Collateral damage? Dude, have you ever been to Somalia? The people there have really really dark skin. So, killing them is OK.
I remember back in the day when it was explained to me by very serious foreign policy people that, treaty obligations aside, the US government really could not just intervene militarily to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide because of a huge host of legal, ethical and military reasons. Some of them even made sense to me at the time. But all that just gets swept aside like morning dew beneath a hellfire missile strike because some guy somewhere mentioned the word Al Queda, and Americans, cowards that we are, now must rush in to blow up people somewhere.
It is breathtaking. I think I will go throw up now.
I don’t know how many times we have to fail spectacularly at radically transforming alien societies by blowing shit up with death machines in the sky before we learn that we don’t know how to do it right. This isn’t even arrogance or hubris anymore; we’ve regressed into some bizarre infantile state where GI-Joe will solve all the problems in the world because Joe is a badass. Even as a little kid playing toy soldier, I was never this naive about the efficacy of blowing people up as a way to change societies.
I love how when it comes to stopping a genocide in Rwanda or Darfur or ethnic cleaning in central Africa, the US government is all ‘screw our treaty obligations, there’s no way we could do that…I mean, who would pay for the gas for our airplane?!’ but when some local Islamist group in a failed state with neither the interest nor the capability of launching international operations decides to goose up their recruiting by declaring that they’re actually a local Al Queda franchise, BOOM! Legal problems with invading a foreign country? Gone. What about sovereignty? Someone said the word terrorism, so that no longer matters. Who will pay for all this? No problem! Predators are free! Questions about targeting accuracy? Meh, the CIA will do fine; they know all about East Africa. Collateral damage? Dude, have you ever been to Somalia? The people there have really really dark skin. So, killing them is OK.
I remember back in the day when it was explained to me by very serious foreign policy people that, treaty obligations aside, the US government really could not just intervene militarily to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide because of a huge host of legal, ethical and military reasons. Some of them even made sense to me at the time. But all that just gets swept aside like morning dew beneath a hellfire missile strike because some guy somewhere mentioned the word Al Queda, and Americans, cowards that we are, now must rush in to blow up people somewhere.
It is breathtaking. I think I will go throw up now.
I don’t know how many times we have to fail spectacularly at radically transforming alien societies by blowing shit up with death machines in the sky before we learn that we don’t know how to do it right. This isn’t even arrogance or hubris anymore; we’ve regressed into some bizarre infantile state where GI-Joe will solve all the problems in the world because Joe is a badass. Even as a little kid playing toy soldier, I was never this naive about the efficacy of blowing people up as a way to change societies.
sapient, you’re a lucky dude. Your neighbors will never, ever, ever be Shabab or a band of Yemeni militants.
sapient, you’re a lucky dude. Your neighbors will never, ever, ever be Shabab or a band of Yemeni militants.
Turbulence, not sure what that rant was about, or how it has to do with really, really dark skin.
russell, I sure hope you’re right that my neighbors will never be those people, or anyone like them. Not sure what your point is with that. But my point, in case you didn’t get it, is that your emotional appeal that it would be terrible, just terrible, for neighbors to be blown up doesn’t really apply if you live in a neighborhood like that.
Turbulence, not sure what that rant was about, or how it has to do with really, really dark skin.
russell, I sure hope you’re right that my neighbors will never be those people, or anyone like them. Not sure what your point is with that. But my point, in case you didn’t get it, is that your emotional appeal that it would be terrible, just terrible, for neighbors to be blown up doesn’t really apply if you live in a neighborhood like that.
Is it your assertion that the population in general in Yemen favors U.S. air strikes in Yemen?
If so, do you have some evidence to that effect?
If not, your analogy seems to completely fail.
Am I missing something?
I think I am not getting your point, unless your point is that, in fact, al-Awlaki’s “neighbors,” which I’d take to be the folks/tribes living within, say, a fifty mile range of where he lived, agree with you that incoming Hellfire missiles in their “neighborhood” are desirable, or at least unobjectionable.
If that is your point: evidence of some sort?
If that’s not your point, I’m being a little slow in grasping it, other than that you have seem to assert the AUMF covers every possible possible military attack on anyone in the world, anywhere, that the president of the U.S. designates is a desirable target.
If that’s not your point, could you perhaps explain any limitations of geography or circumstances to the above?
I’d appreciate any specificity you could include in your response.
Can the president legally, in your view, order a Hellfire strike in a U.S. city? A J-DAM? A bunker-buster bomb? A nuke?
And speech is sufficient to warrant execution, yes? No?
Is it your assertion that the population in general in Yemen favors U.S. air strikes in Yemen?
If so, do you have some evidence to that effect?
If not, your analogy seems to completely fail.
Am I missing something?
I think I am not getting your point, unless your point is that, in fact, al-Awlaki’s “neighbors,” which I’d take to be the folks/tribes living within, say, a fifty mile range of where he lived, agree with you that incoming Hellfire missiles in their “neighborhood” are desirable, or at least unobjectionable.
If that is your point: evidence of some sort?
If that’s not your point, I’m being a little slow in grasping it, other than that you have seem to assert the AUMF covers every possible possible military attack on anyone in the world, anywhere, that the president of the U.S. designates is a desirable target.
If that’s not your point, could you perhaps explain any limitations of geography or circumstances to the above?
I’d appreciate any specificity you could include in your response.
Can the president legally, in your view, order a Hellfire strike in a U.S. city? A J-DAM? A bunker-buster bomb? A nuke?
And speech is sufficient to warrant execution, yes? No?
If my neighbors were the Shabab Islamic insurgent group who was blocking starving people from getting food, or Yemeni militants who had just driven out 100,000 civilians, I would be quite happy to have them blown up.
Just out of idle curiousity, how many drone attacks or other bombing events have you lived through personally, that you feel so glibly confident saying this?
(j/k you don’t really have to answer since we both know the answer is “zero” and you’re being full of it, here.)
If my neighbors were the Shabab Islamic insurgent group who was blocking starving people from getting food, or Yemeni militants who had just driven out 100,000 civilians, I would be quite happy to have them blown up.
Just out of idle curiousity, how many drone attacks or other bombing events have you lived through personally, that you feel so glibly confident saying this?
(j/k you don’t really have to answer since we both know the answer is “zero” and you’re being full of it, here.)
Gary, the term “execution” isn’t used for lawful killing in war. I think we’ve been over this, already though. And, although I don’t have a read on the general population of Yemen, neither do you.
Phil, as for whether I’ve lived through bombing events, no. I do have close friends who are Bosnian, who live here now. Although they didn’t much like the bombing experience of their neighborhood (their very street), they were quite happy to see it coming and to see it happen. They weren’t fond of their fascist neighbors either.
And my WWII veteran friends, some of whom are now deceased? They were quite well-received when they returned to France for a visit, where people (who probably didn’t much enjoy the bombing experience itself) were quite happy to see them, because of the fact that bombing was done there. (And, Gary, we didn’t do a poll there either.)
Sometimes neighbors are actually happy with bombing, even grateful for it.
Gary, the term “execution” isn’t used for lawful killing in war. I think we’ve been over this, already though. And, although I don’t have a read on the general population of Yemen, neither do you.
Phil, as for whether I’ve lived through bombing events, no. I do have close friends who are Bosnian, who live here now. Although they didn’t much like the bombing experience of their neighborhood (their very street), they were quite happy to see it coming and to see it happen. They weren’t fond of their fascist neighbors either.
And my WWII veteran friends, some of whom are now deceased? They were quite well-received when they returned to France for a visit, where people (who probably didn’t much enjoy the bombing experience itself) were quite happy to see them, because of the fact that bombing was done there. (And, Gary, we didn’t do a poll there either.)
Sometimes neighbors are actually happy with bombing, even grateful for it.
Sapient, you claimed that the “constitutionality” of the AUMF had never been challenged. However, I pointed out that some applications of the AUMF were, in fact, successfully challenged in Hamdi. That is because a law can be unconstitutionally executed without being unconstitutional on its face. You then said that Hamdi said that citizens had no special rights.
So what? The question is why you think the AUMF authorizes the president to order due-process-free assassinations of U.S. citizens. Your claim that Hamdi says citizens and non citizens are “the same” when treated as enemy combatants does not address this question. Maybe the President cannot order due-process-free killings of EITHER citizens OR non citizens.
I then asked again what legal authority makes you believe that the president has the power to order due-process-free assassinations of U.S. citizens. You say it hasn’t been addressed.
What makes you think that when it is addressed, it will be found constitutional? So far your argument seems to be that since drone assassination hasn’t been considered by the court before … it has a shot? I don’t really understand.
The United States, through DoD spokespeople (I think), announced ages ago that An-al was on a kill list. I think this expresses the idea that he was going to get killed regardless of whether he was on a battlefield. Any application of the AUMF which allows the President to determine the size, scope, and duration of “the battlefield” without review means the President has unlimited power.
Sapient, you claimed that the “constitutionality” of the AUMF had never been challenged. However, I pointed out that some applications of the AUMF were, in fact, successfully challenged in Hamdi. That is because a law can be unconstitutionally executed without being unconstitutional on its face. You then said that Hamdi said that citizens had no special rights.
So what? The question is why you think the AUMF authorizes the president to order due-process-free assassinations of U.S. citizens. Your claim that Hamdi says citizens and non citizens are “the same” when treated as enemy combatants does not address this question. Maybe the President cannot order due-process-free killings of EITHER citizens OR non citizens.
I then asked again what legal authority makes you believe that the president has the power to order due-process-free assassinations of U.S. citizens. You say it hasn’t been addressed.
What makes you think that when it is addressed, it will be found constitutional? So far your argument seems to be that since drone assassination hasn’t been considered by the court before … it has a shot? I don’t really understand.
The United States, through DoD spokespeople (I think), announced ages ago that An-al was on a kill list. I think this expresses the idea that he was going to get killed regardless of whether he was on a battlefield. Any application of the AUMF which allows the President to determine the size, scope, and duration of “the battlefield” without review means the President has unlimited power.
McTx: Here’s what distinguishes An-a-Al in Yemen from Seamus in Boston: Yemen is a country in name only with no internal law enforcement apparatus, no treaty with the US and the terrain and people are so hostile that there simply is no US law enforcement agency configured and trained to make a forced entry and arrest An-a-Al. If A-a-A were in western Europe or many other places in the world, this *would* be an intelligence/law enforcement issue. He isn’t and therefore it isn’t.
So, whether or not we can assassinate someone under the Constitution and other law, depends on the location of the target? Really?
Suppose he’s in England and the English refuse to extradite him, then what?
McTx: Here’s what distinguishes An-a-Al in Yemen from Seamus in Boston: Yemen is a country in name only with no internal law enforcement apparatus, no treaty with the US and the terrain and people are so hostile that there simply is no US law enforcement agency configured and trained to make a forced entry and arrest An-a-Al. If A-a-A were in western Europe or many other places in the world, this *would* be an intelligence/law enforcement issue. He isn’t and therefore it isn’t.
So, whether or not we can assassinate someone under the Constitution and other law, depends on the location of the target? Really?
Suppose he’s in England and the English refuse to extradite him, then what?
It was meant to prompt you to consider how you would respond to some other country blowing up people in your neighborhood.
If the US was harboring known terrorists who were operating against a third country or its citizens and not assisting in the capture/suppression of those terrorists, then we would be legitimately exposing ourselves to that third country’s counter measures.
But, that isn’t happening and hasn’t happened.
Russell, I take it that your bottom line is that, if we can’t execute an arrest warrant, we stand idly by and just take it?
Holmes, or someone, said the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact. It doesn’t cover every contingency. You would compel the US to accommodate a world that doesn’t always lend itself to the domestic criminal paradigm. That’s fine. It’s also why a liberal presidential candidate, if he/she agreed with you on the campaign trail, would go the way of George McGovern.
A country, if you can call Yemen that, that harbors one or more groups attacking or attempting to attack US citizens is also outside the law. Invasion/military strikes are legal when that happens. If that were not the case, then the Afghanistan operation was illegal. There are probably those here who believe that to be the case. Good luck making that point to the vast majority of Americans.
How do you suggest that be done outside a courtroom?
You don’t. You act in self defense, as the law allows.
It was meant to prompt you to consider how you would respond to some other country blowing up people in your neighborhood.
If the US was harboring known terrorists who were operating against a third country or its citizens and not assisting in the capture/suppression of those terrorists, then we would be legitimately exposing ourselves to that third country’s counter measures.
But, that isn’t happening and hasn’t happened.
Russell, I take it that your bottom line is that, if we can’t execute an arrest warrant, we stand idly by and just take it?
Holmes, or someone, said the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact. It doesn’t cover every contingency. You would compel the US to accommodate a world that doesn’t always lend itself to the domestic criminal paradigm. That’s fine. It’s also why a liberal presidential candidate, if he/she agreed with you on the campaign trail, would go the way of George McGovern.
A country, if you can call Yemen that, that harbors one or more groups attacking or attempting to attack US citizens is also outside the law. Invasion/military strikes are legal when that happens. If that were not the case, then the Afghanistan operation was illegal. There are probably those here who believe that to be the case. Good luck making that point to the vast majority of Americans.
How do you suggest that be done outside a courtroom?
You don’t. You act in self defense, as the law allows.
Turbulence, not sure what that rant was about, or how it has to do with really, really dark skin.
Two things:
(1) As russell pointed out, you seem delighted at the prospect of massive violence coming to neighborhoods where you’ll never live. Americans have a long history of deciding that massive violence is OK as long as only dark skinned folks are on the receiving end (special exemption offered to Asians during Vietnam).
(2) There are actually lots of reasons that the US didn’t go blowing up everyone who said mean things about us pre-2001. Little things like sovereignty, the laws of war, concerns about killing civilians, the efficacy of military action when it comes to changing societies. You’ve just decided that all those concerns no longer matter because Americans are scared and have an AUMF. Even if the AUMF conflicts with other American laws.
Turbulence, not sure what that rant was about, or how it has to do with really, really dark skin.
Two things:
(1) As russell pointed out, you seem delighted at the prospect of massive violence coming to neighborhoods where you’ll never live. Americans have a long history of deciding that massive violence is OK as long as only dark skinned folks are on the receiving end (special exemption offered to Asians during Vietnam).
(2) There are actually lots of reasons that the US didn’t go blowing up everyone who said mean things about us pre-2001. Little things like sovereignty, the laws of war, concerns about killing civilians, the efficacy of military action when it comes to changing societies. You’ve just decided that all those concerns no longer matter because Americans are scared and have an AUMF. Even if the AUMF conflicts with other American laws.
But, that isn’t happening and hasn’t happened.
Incorrect. When Irish folk in American were sending cash and guns to the IRA, the British government complained mightily and the US government did absolutely nothing for many years.
A country, if you can call Yemen that, that harbors one or more groups attacking or attempting to attack US citizens is also outside the law.
This fantasy seems to have nothing to do with international law as I understand it.
But, that isn’t happening and hasn’t happened.
Incorrect. When Irish folk in American were sending cash and guns to the IRA, the British government complained mightily and the US government did absolutely nothing for many years.
A country, if you can call Yemen that, that harbors one or more groups attacking or attempting to attack US citizens is also outside the law.
This fantasy seems to have nothing to do with international law as I understand it.
McTx: Holmes, or someone, said the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact. It doesn’t cover every contingency. You would compel the US to accommodate a world that doesn’t always lend itself to the domestic criminal paradigm.
Well, this is ridiculous. If Russia, China, India, the U.K., Germany, France, Canada, Japan, and Mexico all coordinated an invasion of the U.S., I might concede that perhaps we could set some Constitutional provisions aside (and look! I see Article 1 Section 9!). But, Jesus fncking Christ, one dude in Yemen, which is not a real country anyway as you note, and you’re citing Justice Jackson as if there’s some threat to the nation that we’re allowed to counter by any means necessary. Could we just nuke the whole faux-country and be done with it, in “self-defense”?
McTx: Holmes, or someone, said the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact. It doesn’t cover every contingency. You would compel the US to accommodate a world that doesn’t always lend itself to the domestic criminal paradigm.
Well, this is ridiculous. If Russia, China, India, the U.K., Germany, France, Canada, Japan, and Mexico all coordinated an invasion of the U.S., I might concede that perhaps we could set some Constitutional provisions aside (and look! I see Article 1 Section 9!). But, Jesus fncking Christ, one dude in Yemen, which is not a real country anyway as you note, and you’re citing Justice Jackson as if there’s some threat to the nation that we’re allowed to counter by any means necessary. Could we just nuke the whole faux-country and be done with it, in “self-defense”?
Well, this is ridiculous.
Sure, nukes are entirely proportional to the question at hand, and not ridiculous at all.
The “one dude” argument fails, since OBL was “one dude”. You don’t know what An-a-Al was or was not up to. I conceded at the beginning of this that if he isn’t guilty of really bad stuff, then the president’s decision was really bad. You are making the “he isn’t enough of a threat” argument. My counter is: imagine a threat big enough, and tell me where the line is drawn.
Well, this is ridiculous.
Sure, nukes are entirely proportional to the question at hand, and not ridiculous at all.
The “one dude” argument fails, since OBL was “one dude”. You don’t know what An-a-Al was or was not up to. I conceded at the beginning of this that if he isn’t guilty of really bad stuff, then the president’s decision was really bad. You are making the “he isn’t enough of a threat” argument. My counter is: imagine a threat big enough, and tell me where the line is drawn.
And while I’m thinking of this notion of “suicide pacts.” How many nuclear weapons does Al Qaeda have? How many chemical weapons? How many biological weapons? How many ballistic missile submarines, aircraft carrier groups, M1 tanks, MRAPs, spy satellites, B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, F-22s, AWACS, Apaches, AC-130s, etc. etc. etc.?
But hey, An-a-Al says “booga booga,” so all bets are off.
And while I’m thinking of this notion of “suicide pacts.” How many nuclear weapons does Al Qaeda have? How many chemical weapons? How many biological weapons? How many ballistic missile submarines, aircraft carrier groups, M1 tanks, MRAPs, spy satellites, B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, F-22s, AWACS, Apaches, AC-130s, etc. etc. etc.?
But hey, An-a-Al says “booga booga,” so all bets are off.
Why are all you liberals questioning the government? You think government is the solution to every problem, so get it straight.
/stupid parody
So far no one has really established with any degree of certainty what the nature was of the threat that Anwar al-Awlaki represented for the United States. I guess he was a pretty superhuman kind of dude.
Russell, I take it that your bottom line is that, if we can’t execute an arrest warrant, we stand idly by and just take it?
Let’s not over-generalize. The question is, take what, exactly? See above.
If that were not the case, then the Afghanistan operation was illegal. There are probably those here who believe that to be the case. Good luck making that point to the vast majority of Americans.
The vast majority of Americans can be wrong sometimes, but leaving that aside, supposedly superhuman Anwar al-Awlaki was not involved in 9/11 and was not an entire, well-known, well-documented terrorist network unto himself. In short, going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan has squat to do with the specific case we’re discussing.
Why are all you liberals questioning the government? You think government is the solution to every problem, so get it straight.
/stupid parody
So far no one has really established with any degree of certainty what the nature was of the threat that Anwar al-Awlaki represented for the United States. I guess he was a pretty superhuman kind of dude.
Russell, I take it that your bottom line is that, if we can’t execute an arrest warrant, we stand idly by and just take it?
Let’s not over-generalize. The question is, take what, exactly? See above.
If that were not the case, then the Afghanistan operation was illegal. There are probably those here who believe that to be the case. Good luck making that point to the vast majority of Americans.
The vast majority of Americans can be wrong sometimes, but leaving that aside, supposedly superhuman Anwar al-Awlaki was not involved in 9/11 and was not an entire, well-known, well-documented terrorist network unto himself. In short, going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan has squat to do with the specific case we’re discussing.
I mean, Anwar al-Awlaki, in all likelihood, was a real a-hole and probably someone I wouldn’t shed any tears over. But it’s not him, per se, that I’m worried about.
I mean, Anwar al-Awlaki, in all likelihood, was a real a-hole and probably someone I wouldn’t shed any tears over. But it’s not him, per se, that I’m worried about.
Ok, so one exemption.
Make that two?
And then there are recent events in Egypt; Egyptians don’t have particularly dark skins.
We didn’t do all that much (some, arguably) to discourage widespread visitation of death and suffering in Bosnia, either. So maybe that whole skin-tone conversation is just a red herring that you might want to consider letting go of.
Or not, as you will. Because inhabitants of SE Asia and Egypt aren’t quite as Nordic in complexion as Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and assorted NATO member heads of state.
Ok, so one exemption.
Make that two?
And then there are recent events in Egypt; Egyptians don’t have particularly dark skins.
We didn’t do all that much (some, arguably) to discourage widespread visitation of death and suffering in Bosnia, either. So maybe that whole skin-tone conversation is just a red herring that you might want to consider letting go of.
Or not, as you will. Because inhabitants of SE Asia and Egypt aren’t quite as Nordic in complexion as Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and assorted NATO member heads of state.
My counter is: imagine a threat big enough, and tell me where the line is drawn.
Well, okay: If the treat is big enough to make all the lines irrelevant, then it doesn’t really matter, I guess. For instance, I’d advocate doing whatever was in our power as a nation to kill someone whose very existence was an immediate threat to the lives of all Americans.
But, so what? Why imagine? We’re talking about a real person.
It sounds like you agree that this was a problematic killing, McKinney, short of evidence otherwise.
My counter is: imagine a threat big enough, and tell me where the line is drawn.
Well, okay: If the treat is big enough to make all the lines irrelevant, then it doesn’t really matter, I guess. For instance, I’d advocate doing whatever was in our power as a nation to kill someone whose very existence was an immediate threat to the lives of all Americans.
But, so what? Why imagine? We’re talking about a real person.
It sounds like you agree that this was a problematic killing, McKinney, short of evidence otherwise.
It sounds like you agree that this was a problematic killing, McKinney, short of evidence otherwise.
No, I don’t because I do not believe that this administration would target a US citizen overseas without especially compelling reasons. Assuming, as I do, especially compelling reasons, I am ok with this kind of thing as a very, very rare exception to the more general rule that US citizens, here or overseas, are due all of the relevant constitutional protections. To me, especially compelling reasons are in the nature of the ticking bomb scenario common to the torture debate. I would expect, at a minimum, the following: (1) substantial evidence that X is actively planning and is capable of carrying out his/her plans, to kill American citizens, (2) that X cannot be apprehended by any other reasonable means and (3) that the planned attack is operational, that is, concrete steps to carry out the plan are in progress. If X is merrily planning to nuke NYC but has only a bag of firecrackers and no organization, then he/she is simply a sick loon. If X is the US version of OBL, and the other criteria apply, then an exception is warranted.
It sounds like you agree that this was a problematic killing, McKinney, short of evidence otherwise.
No, I don’t because I do not believe that this administration would target a US citizen overseas without especially compelling reasons. Assuming, as I do, especially compelling reasons, I am ok with this kind of thing as a very, very rare exception to the more general rule that US citizens, here or overseas, are due all of the relevant constitutional protections. To me, especially compelling reasons are in the nature of the ticking bomb scenario common to the torture debate. I would expect, at a minimum, the following: (1) substantial evidence that X is actively planning and is capable of carrying out his/her plans, to kill American citizens, (2) that X cannot be apprehended by any other reasonable means and (3) that the planned attack is operational, that is, concrete steps to carry out the plan are in progress. If X is merrily planning to nuke NYC but has only a bag of firecrackers and no organization, then he/she is simply a sick loon. If X is the US version of OBL, and the other criteria apply, then an exception is warranted.
If the US was harboring known terrorists who were operating against a third country or its citizens and not assisting in the capture/suppression of those terrorists, then we would be legitimately exposing ourselves to that third country’s counter measures.
But, that isn’t happening and hasn’t happened.
As Turb points out, exactly that did happen wrt England and the Provos.
Also, Posada Carilles. Also, the Hermanos Rescate folks.
Mexico could make a case for ‘taking out’, by whatever means, gun sellers in AZ who are known to have sold weapons to Mexican drug traffickers.
Especially if it lies with the executive of the offended country to decide who is and who is not worthy of military reprisal.
If we say it’s OK for us, we have no basis for saying it’s not OK for anyone else. As you yourself note.
It’s a Pandora’s box.
I have no problem stipulating that Al Awlaki was a bad actor, from our point of view. I have a big problem with the assumption that anything and everything that may flow from handling terrorism in this way is worth removing him from the picture.
Russell, I take it that your bottom line is that, if we can’t execute an arrest warrant, we stand idly by and just take it?
My bottom line is that what we do needs to be lawful and proportionate to the threat.
The reason for that is because we live in a big world and there are lots of consequences, of all different kinds, that flow from acting without concern for the opinion of the rest of the world.
And above and beyond that, there are by intent and design limits to when, where, and how the President, or any agent of government, can apply deadly force. Those limits are there for damned good reason, and should not be relaxed for reasons of expedience.
My counter is: imagine a threat big enough, and tell me where the line is drawn.
I’m not playing.
We’re not talking about hypothetical “threats big enough”, whatever they may be. We’re talking about a guy – one guy – who was involved in propaganda and recruitment. He may have been involved in operational planning for some past events.
The rest is conjecture.
If you, or anyone, wants to claim that Al Awlaki presented a threat large enough, imminent enough, and credible enough that we were compelled, in good faith, to send military force into another country to address it, then the burden is on you to demonstrate that that is so.
Folks seem to want to dismiss the concept of other countries coming here to assassinate folks living here who they think are their enemies. That has actually happened in the past, and we’ve generally viewed it pretty freaking negatively.
It’s not common here because we are astoundingly wealthy and powerful, and most other countries would rather just live with the fact of a Provo cell, or a Posada Carilles, living here, as opposed to pissing us the hell off.
So, lucky us.
But I’d say that assuming that we, as the biggest gorilla in the room, can pretty much do whatever the hell we want is not in our national best interest.
It really does piss people off to have military drones flying over their heads looking for people to blow up. It really does compromise our ability to claim good faith when dealing with other nations. It really does build a reservoir of ill will, and really does undermine our credibility with other people.
These are not trivial things.
The glue that holds things together are the kinds of basic, common agreements that nations and people have with each other to not f*** each other over.
Sometimes it’s highly inconvenient to keep that in place. But when it goes away, things are even worse.
Some bad guys get away. It sucks, but it’s the reality. The world is full of Al Awlakis, and we’re not going to get them all. The best we’re going to achieve is preventing them from killing us, to the greatest degree we can.
If we make 100 enemies to kill one, we’re not winning. If we give up the fundamental basis of what we’re about to kill one, likewise.
If the US was harboring known terrorists who were operating against a third country or its citizens and not assisting in the capture/suppression of those terrorists, then we would be legitimately exposing ourselves to that third country’s counter measures.
But, that isn’t happening and hasn’t happened.
As Turb points out, exactly that did happen wrt England and the Provos.
Also, Posada Carilles. Also, the Hermanos Rescate folks.
Mexico could make a case for ‘taking out’, by whatever means, gun sellers in AZ who are known to have sold weapons to Mexican drug traffickers.
Especially if it lies with the executive of the offended country to decide who is and who is not worthy of military reprisal.
If we say it’s OK for us, we have no basis for saying it’s not OK for anyone else. As you yourself note.
It’s a Pandora’s box.
I have no problem stipulating that Al Awlaki was a bad actor, from our point of view. I have a big problem with the assumption that anything and everything that may flow from handling terrorism in this way is worth removing him from the picture.
Russell, I take it that your bottom line is that, if we can’t execute an arrest warrant, we stand idly by and just take it?
My bottom line is that what we do needs to be lawful and proportionate to the threat.
The reason for that is because we live in a big world and there are lots of consequences, of all different kinds, that flow from acting without concern for the opinion of the rest of the world.
And above and beyond that, there are by intent and design limits to when, where, and how the President, or any agent of government, can apply deadly force. Those limits are there for damned good reason, and should not be relaxed for reasons of expedience.
My counter is: imagine a threat big enough, and tell me where the line is drawn.
I’m not playing.
We’re not talking about hypothetical “threats big enough”, whatever they may be. We’re talking about a guy – one guy – who was involved in propaganda and recruitment. He may have been involved in operational planning for some past events.
The rest is conjecture.
If you, or anyone, wants to claim that Al Awlaki presented a threat large enough, imminent enough, and credible enough that we were compelled, in good faith, to send military force into another country to address it, then the burden is on you to demonstrate that that is so.
Folks seem to want to dismiss the concept of other countries coming here to assassinate folks living here who they think are their enemies. That has actually happened in the past, and we’ve generally viewed it pretty freaking negatively.
It’s not common here because we are astoundingly wealthy and powerful, and most other countries would rather just live with the fact of a Provo cell, or a Posada Carilles, living here, as opposed to pissing us the hell off.
So, lucky us.
But I’d say that assuming that we, as the biggest gorilla in the room, can pretty much do whatever the hell we want is not in our national best interest.
It really does piss people off to have military drones flying over their heads looking for people to blow up. It really does compromise our ability to claim good faith when dealing with other nations. It really does build a reservoir of ill will, and really does undermine our credibility with other people.
These are not trivial things.
The glue that holds things together are the kinds of basic, common agreements that nations and people have with each other to not f*** each other over.
Sometimes it’s highly inconvenient to keep that in place. But when it goes away, things are even worse.
Some bad guys get away. It sucks, but it’s the reality. The world is full of Al Awlakis, and we’re not going to get them all. The best we’re going to achieve is preventing them from killing us, to the greatest degree we can.
If we make 100 enemies to kill one, we’re not winning. If we give up the fundamental basis of what we’re about to kill one, likewise.
Assuming, as I do, especially compelling reasons…
Therein lies the rub. Why should we have to assume? Why is there no burden of proof? That’s kind of the whole freakin’ point, isn’t it?
Assuming, as I do, especially compelling reasons…
Therein lies the rub. Why should we have to assume? Why is there no burden of proof? That’s kind of the whole freakin’ point, isn’t it?
I’m sorry that I can’t restrain myself from writing this but it’s like this:
Raise marginal tax rates?!?! Are you crazy?!?!
Kill American citizens in foreign countries without due process? Um, okay…
I’m sorry that I can’t restrain myself from writing this but it’s like this:
Raise marginal tax rates?!?! Are you crazy?!?!
Kill American citizens in foreign countries without due process? Um, okay…
Therein lies the rub. Why should we have to assume? Why is there no burden of proof? That’s kind of the whole freakin’ point, isn’t it?
Because this is a freakin’ war, and when there’s an enemy target, nobody needs to prove anything unless, after the fact, someone wants to dispute that the matter fell under the President’s authority. Even then, it’s usually considered a “political question,” which means, “You don’t like it? Elect somebody else.” That’s why we have to be careful who we elect as President. That person has a lot of power. That person makes military decisions based on classified information. It’s scary powerful. But it’s Constitutional.
If you read the case that Al-Alwaki’s father brought to enjoin this action, you can find out something about the legal issues here. (Did you read it? It’s cited above.) Once Congress declares war (and the AUMF is a war authorization), the courts pretty much stay out of it.
And, by the way, once Americans start acting as enemies (and proclaiming themselves such) in a situation where a war authorization has been declared by Congress, I don’t really get what the problem is. Al-Alwaki certainly knew what the score was. He was okay with it. He was proud of it. He continued propagandizing and recruiting. He didn’t make himself available for arrest. I really don’t think that the Constitution was meant to be a cat and mouse game. Al-Alwaki had some control here.
Therein lies the rub. Why should we have to assume? Why is there no burden of proof? That’s kind of the whole freakin’ point, isn’t it?
Because this is a freakin’ war, and when there’s an enemy target, nobody needs to prove anything unless, after the fact, someone wants to dispute that the matter fell under the President’s authority. Even then, it’s usually considered a “political question,” which means, “You don’t like it? Elect somebody else.” That’s why we have to be careful who we elect as President. That person has a lot of power. That person makes military decisions based on classified information. It’s scary powerful. But it’s Constitutional.
If you read the case that Al-Alwaki’s father brought to enjoin this action, you can find out something about the legal issues here. (Did you read it? It’s cited above.) Once Congress declares war (and the AUMF is a war authorization), the courts pretty much stay out of it.
And, by the way, once Americans start acting as enemies (and proclaiming themselves such) in a situation where a war authorization has been declared by Congress, I don’t really get what the problem is. Al-Alwaki certainly knew what the score was. He was okay with it. He was proud of it. He continued propagandizing and recruiting. He didn’t make himself available for arrest. I really don’t think that the Constitution was meant to be a cat and mouse game. Al-Alwaki had some control here.
Sapient:
Once Congress declares war (and the AUMF is a war authorization), the courts pretty much stay out of it.
Me:
What does “pretty much stay out of it” mean? It looks wrong on its face, since in Hamdi, the Supreme Court compelled the administration to create tribunals. In Hamdan, the Supreme court ruled that the tribunals set up by the Bush administration violated the UCMJ and article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court did not “stay out of it.” The Supreme Court ruled against the administration in both cases. Can you cite some facts which would support your position that the courts “stay out of it?”
Sapient:
He continued propagandizing and recruiting. He didn’t make himself available for arrest.
Me (and others upthread):
Arrest for what? The U.S. did not indict An-Al for anything. An-Al had no charge against which he could present a defense. Furthermore, the U.S. refused to allow the ACLU to represent An-Al. An-Al was barred from attempting to present a defense or from having counsel present one for him. You use the term “arrest” but the U.S. made it clear they did not want to arrest An-Al. Putting him on a kill list and announcing that fact meant the U.S. was no longer interested in arrest. I think the term which would be most appropriate is execution. An-Al definitely did not present himself for execution.
Sapient:
Because this is a freakin’ war, and when there’s an enemy target, nobody needs to prove anything unless, after the fact, someone wants to dispute that the matter fell under the President’s authority … It’s scary powerful. But it’s Constitutional.
What is your basis for asserting that “it” is Constitutional? What is “it?” It’s hard to rebut you when you do not specify.
The due process objection to “war” as a justification for dispensing with due process is that “war” is now defined as indefinite and unlimited.
Sapient, the implication of your argued-for version of the president’s authority is that if Obama ordered all Arabs in the U.S. rounded up and put into camps tomorrow, there would be no constitutional challenge available, and we could not even ask Obama why he wanted to do so. Do you see why? Under your proposed model, the determination is his to make, and no review is or should be available.
If I have misstated your position, please tell me what recourse there would be if Obama made the above determination w/r/t arabs in camps.
Sapient:
Once Congress declares war (and the AUMF is a war authorization), the courts pretty much stay out of it.
Me:
What does “pretty much stay out of it” mean? It looks wrong on its face, since in Hamdi, the Supreme Court compelled the administration to create tribunals. In Hamdan, the Supreme court ruled that the tribunals set up by the Bush administration violated the UCMJ and article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court did not “stay out of it.” The Supreme Court ruled against the administration in both cases. Can you cite some facts which would support your position that the courts “stay out of it?”
Sapient:
He continued propagandizing and recruiting. He didn’t make himself available for arrest.
Me (and others upthread):
Arrest for what? The U.S. did not indict An-Al for anything. An-Al had no charge against which he could present a defense. Furthermore, the U.S. refused to allow the ACLU to represent An-Al. An-Al was barred from attempting to present a defense or from having counsel present one for him. You use the term “arrest” but the U.S. made it clear they did not want to arrest An-Al. Putting him on a kill list and announcing that fact meant the U.S. was no longer interested in arrest. I think the term which would be most appropriate is execution. An-Al definitely did not present himself for execution.
Sapient:
Because this is a freakin’ war, and when there’s an enemy target, nobody needs to prove anything unless, after the fact, someone wants to dispute that the matter fell under the President’s authority … It’s scary powerful. But it’s Constitutional.
What is your basis for asserting that “it” is Constitutional? What is “it?” It’s hard to rebut you when you do not specify.
The due process objection to “war” as a justification for dispensing with due process is that “war” is now defined as indefinite and unlimited.
Sapient, the implication of your argued-for version of the president’s authority is that if Obama ordered all Arabs in the U.S. rounded up and put into camps tomorrow, there would be no constitutional challenge available, and we could not even ask Obama why he wanted to do so. Do you see why? Under your proposed model, the determination is his to make, and no review is or should be available.
If I have misstated your position, please tell me what recourse there would be if Obama made the above determination w/r/t arabs in camps.
If you read the case that Al-Alwaki’s father brought to enjoin this action, you can find out something about the legal issues here.
What was relevant to this discussion was nothing all that new. AFAICT, the parts that mattered to the larger issue, we’ve already covered on this thread.
Much of the discussion of the case revolves around the basis upon which Anwar al-Awlaki’s father brought the case to court, not about the broad issue at hand. What does revolve around the specifics of targeting Anwar al-Awlaki basically ends up as “we as a court can’t tell what’s going on, so we can’t decide, and it’s up to the other branch(es).” I think it’s pretty much horseshit.
Even then, it’s usually considered a “political question,” which means, “You don’t like it? Elect somebody else.”
That might be the practical result, but it doesn’t mean I have to agree with it or like it. A complicit court ruling just means it’s going to be harder to check executive power, not that doing so isn’t the right thing to do in a supposedly free society.
If you read the case that Al-Alwaki’s father brought to enjoin this action, you can find out something about the legal issues here.
What was relevant to this discussion was nothing all that new. AFAICT, the parts that mattered to the larger issue, we’ve already covered on this thread.
Much of the discussion of the case revolves around the basis upon which Anwar al-Awlaki’s father brought the case to court, not about the broad issue at hand. What does revolve around the specifics of targeting Anwar al-Awlaki basically ends up as “we as a court can’t tell what’s going on, so we can’t decide, and it’s up to the other branch(es).” I think it’s pretty much horseshit.
Even then, it’s usually considered a “political question,” which means, “You don’t like it? Elect somebody else.”
That might be the practical result, but it doesn’t mean I have to agree with it or like it. A complicit court ruling just means it’s going to be harder to check executive power, not that doing so isn’t the right thing to do in a supposedly free society.
I think it’s pretty much horseshit.
If you go back and read all of the cases that have been brought in the United States about issues involving Presidential war powers, you get about the same answer from the courts. Why? Because that’s how the Constitution works in war. You don’t really have to like it because it’s not up to you. You can invent your own Constitution, but under the Constitution we have, the President has a lot of power when Congress declares war. And the Authorization is tantamount to such a declaration.
Again, talk to your Congressman about it, or work on amending the Constitution. And good luck with that.
I think it’s pretty much horseshit.
If you go back and read all of the cases that have been brought in the United States about issues involving Presidential war powers, you get about the same answer from the courts. Why? Because that’s how the Constitution works in war. You don’t really have to like it because it’s not up to you. You can invent your own Constitution, but under the Constitution we have, the President has a lot of power when Congress declares war. And the Authorization is tantamount to such a declaration.
Again, talk to your Congressman about it, or work on amending the Constitution. And good luck with that.
Sapient, the implication of your argued-for version of the president’s authority is that if Obama ordered all Arabs in the U.S. rounded up and put into camps tomorrow, there would be no constitutional challenge available, and we could not even ask Obama why he wanted to do so. Do you see why? Under your proposed model, the determination is his to make, and no review is or should be available.
That’s actually not true, as a matter of fact, for probably a million reasons. For a couple, there are domestic laws that would prevail (including the Posse Comitatus Act). Arabs in the United States would have the right to habeas corpus. In addition, Obama needs money to do things like that and he likely couldn’t get it from Congress. And a whole host of other reasons.
Sapient, the implication of your argued-for version of the president’s authority is that if Obama ordered all Arabs in the U.S. rounded up and put into camps tomorrow, there would be no constitutional challenge available, and we could not even ask Obama why he wanted to do so. Do you see why? Under your proposed model, the determination is his to make, and no review is or should be available.
That’s actually not true, as a matter of fact, for probably a million reasons. For a couple, there are domestic laws that would prevail (including the Posse Comitatus Act). Arabs in the United States would have the right to habeas corpus. In addition, Obama needs money to do things like that and he likely couldn’t get it from Congress. And a whole host of other reasons.
Oh, and those poor rights-deprived al-Qaeda folks. They’re almost harmless, those “bad actors,” that we should just ignore until we can get a proper arrest warrant.
Give me a break.
Oh, and those poor rights-deprived al-Qaeda folks. They’re almost harmless, those “bad actors,” that we should just ignore until we can get a proper arrest warrant.
Give me a break.
I argued that your proposed interpretation of the President’s power would allow for the internment of Arabs. I specifically did not argue that it would happen. I said that, according to your argument, it could happen and there would be no constitutional remedy. I notice that you chose not dispute that it could happen. You merely argued the practicalities. I assume this means you concede that I am correct in my interpretation of your position on Presidential power to put U.S. citizens into internment camps without review from any other branches of government.
Regarding the practicalities …
The internment of the Japanese (WP says about 62% of them were U.S. citizens) during World War 2 happened despite the existence of the Posse Comitatus Act. Japanese-Americans were denied their habeas rights. FDR did somehow get the money to do it.
I don’t understand why you say that Arabs “would have the right to habeas corpus.” You said that the President has the authority under the AUMF to determine without review who is a target. If the President can determine without review that he can have An-Al killed, why can’t he determine without review to intern arab-americans?
I argued that your proposed interpretation of the President’s power would allow for the internment of Arabs. I specifically did not argue that it would happen. I said that, according to your argument, it could happen and there would be no constitutional remedy. I notice that you chose not dispute that it could happen. You merely argued the practicalities. I assume this means you concede that I am correct in my interpretation of your position on Presidential power to put U.S. citizens into internment camps without review from any other branches of government.
Regarding the practicalities …
The internment of the Japanese (WP says about 62% of them were U.S. citizens) during World War 2 happened despite the existence of the Posse Comitatus Act. Japanese-Americans were denied their habeas rights. FDR did somehow get the money to do it.
I don’t understand why you say that Arabs “would have the right to habeas corpus.” You said that the President has the authority under the AUMF to determine without review who is a target. If the President can determine without review that he can have An-Al killed, why can’t he determine without review to intern arab-americans?
And the Authorization is tantamount to such a declaration.
That’s nice. But I don’t think it applies, and the Authorization itself could come under judicial review at some point, if we ever stop wetting our collective selves.
Yeah, I can’t really do much about it, though I’m entitled to my opinion (so what?). Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that the government, broadly speaking, gets to interpret the constitution how it likes and act according to that intrepretation, and that finding something wrong with that is a foolish exercise, since you can’t go out and start your own government. Goodie!
And the Authorization is tantamount to such a declaration.
That’s nice. But I don’t think it applies, and the Authorization itself could come under judicial review at some point, if we ever stop wetting our collective selves.
Yeah, I can’t really do much about it, though I’m entitled to my opinion (so what?). Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that the government, broadly speaking, gets to interpret the constitution how it likes and act according to that intrepretation, and that finding something wrong with that is a foolish exercise, since you can’t go out and start your own government. Goodie!
If you go back and read all of the cases that have been brought in the United States about issues involving Presidential war powers, you get about the same answer from the courts.
Again, that’s nice, since we’ve never gone to war against a tactic before. (Everything really did change on 9/11….)
If you go back and read all of the cases that have been brought in the United States about issues involving Presidential war powers, you get about the same answer from the courts.
Again, that’s nice, since we’ve never gone to war against a tactic before. (Everything really did change on 9/11….)
Because this is a freakin’ war
As we know, as soon as someone says “we are at war” we no longer need to use our minds.
This is why I loathe the “War on Terror” framing. It helps shut people’s brains off.
…
As has been repeatedly pointed out, we failed to help the UK with the problem of Irish Americans funding the IRA. I’m sure one could dig up other examples. The UK didn’t bomb us for two simple reasons: 1) We were more powerful; and 2) we were, despite our differences on that score, allies they felt they needed, so they let it slide with just some complaining.
By the logic you’ve laid out, Sapient, the UK would have been perfectly justified in launching airstrikes against Boston (and, apparently, you would have applauded this).
That’s at least a consistent position. It’s NOT the US Government’s position, however. Do as we say, not as we do.
Because this is a freakin’ war
As we know, as soon as someone says “we are at war” we no longer need to use our minds.
This is why I loathe the “War on Terror” framing. It helps shut people’s brains off.
…
As has been repeatedly pointed out, we failed to help the UK with the problem of Irish Americans funding the IRA. I’m sure one could dig up other examples. The UK didn’t bomb us for two simple reasons: 1) We were more powerful; and 2) we were, despite our differences on that score, allies they felt they needed, so they let it slide with just some complaining.
By the logic you’ve laid out, Sapient, the UK would have been perfectly justified in launching airstrikes against Boston (and, apparently, you would have applauded this).
That’s at least a consistent position. It’s NOT the US Government’s position, however. Do as we say, not as we do.
Julian: The internment of the Japanese (WP says about 62% of them were U.S. citizens) during World War 2 happened despite the existence of the Posse Comitatus Act. Japanese-Americans were denied their habeas rights. FDR did somehow get the money to do it.
Are you proving my point, that the President has a huge amount of power, so be careful who you vote for? What’s your solution?
hairshirthedonist: Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that the government, broadly speaking, gets to interpret the constitution how it likes
And your argument is that hairshirthedonist gets to interpret the constitution as hairshirhedonist likes, and that hairshirt’s opinon should be binding on the country?
hairshirthedonist: Again, that’s nice, since we’ve never gone to war against a tactic before.
The AUMF doesn’t say anything about a tactic. Read it. Words have meaning.
Julian: The internment of the Japanese (WP says about 62% of them were U.S. citizens) during World War 2 happened despite the existence of the Posse Comitatus Act. Japanese-Americans were denied their habeas rights. FDR did somehow get the money to do it.
Are you proving my point, that the President has a huge amount of power, so be careful who you vote for? What’s your solution?
hairshirthedonist: Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that the government, broadly speaking, gets to interpret the constitution how it likes
And your argument is that hairshirthedonist gets to interpret the constitution as hairshirhedonist likes, and that hairshirt’s opinon should be binding on the country?
hairshirthedonist: Again, that’s nice, since we’ve never gone to war against a tactic before.
The AUMF doesn’t say anything about a tactic. Read it. Words have meaning.
Russell: My bottom line is that what we do needs to be lawful and proportionate to the threat.
What’s lawful is a matter of form; what’s proportionate is a question either way.
I mean, the killing of Troy Davis was lawful as all get-out because all the legal formalities were observed, not because it was just or wise.
Was the killing of Osama bin Laden lawful? Viewed as an extra-judicial death penalty for previous crimes, I’d say not. We rightly insist on allowing only the courts, not the elected branches of government, to pass death sentences, and only after a trial. To color it lawful, we’d have to say it was something like the targeted killing of Admiral Yamamoto during WW2: not lawful punishment for masterminding the Pearl Harbor attack, but a legitimate strike against a “high-value target” in a formally declared war. Maybe the AUMF was an adequate formalism to make killing Osama “lawful”, or maybe it wasn’t. Either way, we’re talking about lawfulness in the US; it was still murder under Pakistani law, I imagine. And also either way, it may or may not have been wise, or “proportionate” in the grand scheme of things.
Now, Awlaki. Apparently he was not sentenced to death, not even extra-judicially, for past crimes. He was targeted strictly as an “enemy leader”, like Osama was, and Yamamoto was. I mean, that seems to be the entire “legal” justification for killing him.
Again, I imagine that no American legal formalism can possibly make a deliberate homicide in Yemen “lawful” under Yemeni law. Even if we Americans had formally amended our Constitution to explicitly allow our military to kill anybody our president designates as a “member of al-Qaida”, thus making the killing of Awlaki as “lawful” as the killing of Troy Davis, it’s doubtful that Yemenis would say, “Oh! Alrighty then! Carry on, chaps!”
Lawful AND proportionate is what we would like our government’s actions to be. Maybe killing Osama was “proportionate” and killing Awlaki wasn’t; maybe both were; maybe neither was. I don’t think the parallel statement can be made for “lawful”. That is, I cannot see how it could have been lawful to kill Osama but not lawful to kill Awlaki. Either both were killed as lawfully as Troy Davis, or neither was.
–TP
Russell: My bottom line is that what we do needs to be lawful and proportionate to the threat.
What’s lawful is a matter of form; what’s proportionate is a question either way.
I mean, the killing of Troy Davis was lawful as all get-out because all the legal formalities were observed, not because it was just or wise.
Was the killing of Osama bin Laden lawful? Viewed as an extra-judicial death penalty for previous crimes, I’d say not. We rightly insist on allowing only the courts, not the elected branches of government, to pass death sentences, and only after a trial. To color it lawful, we’d have to say it was something like the targeted killing of Admiral Yamamoto during WW2: not lawful punishment for masterminding the Pearl Harbor attack, but a legitimate strike against a “high-value target” in a formally declared war. Maybe the AUMF was an adequate formalism to make killing Osama “lawful”, or maybe it wasn’t. Either way, we’re talking about lawfulness in the US; it was still murder under Pakistani law, I imagine. And also either way, it may or may not have been wise, or “proportionate” in the grand scheme of things.
Now, Awlaki. Apparently he was not sentenced to death, not even extra-judicially, for past crimes. He was targeted strictly as an “enemy leader”, like Osama was, and Yamamoto was. I mean, that seems to be the entire “legal” justification for killing him.
Again, I imagine that no American legal formalism can possibly make a deliberate homicide in Yemen “lawful” under Yemeni law. Even if we Americans had formally amended our Constitution to explicitly allow our military to kill anybody our president designates as a “member of al-Qaida”, thus making the killing of Awlaki as “lawful” as the killing of Troy Davis, it’s doubtful that Yemenis would say, “Oh! Alrighty then! Carry on, chaps!”
Lawful AND proportionate is what we would like our government’s actions to be. Maybe killing Osama was “proportionate” and killing Awlaki wasn’t; maybe both were; maybe neither was. I don’t think the parallel statement can be made for “lawful”. That is, I cannot see how it could have been lawful to kill Osama but not lawful to kill Awlaki. Either both were killed as lawfully as Troy Davis, or neither was.
–TP
“The Yemeni government began trying [al-Alwaki] in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda, and a Yemenite judge ordered that he be captured “dead or alive“.
The link is a cite to UPI, Wikipedia’s source.
“The Yemeni government began trying [al-Alwaki] in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda, and a Yemenite judge ordered that he be captured “dead or alive“.
The link is a cite to UPI, Wikipedia’s source.
And your argument is that hairshirthedonist gets to interpret the constitution as hairshirhedonist likes, and that hairshirt’s opinon should be binding on the country?
On the first part, of course I can. I can interpret anything as I like, as can you. Whether or not our respective interpretations make any sense or are compelling to anyone else is another question.
On the second, obviously not. Like I wrote before: Yeah, I can’t really do much about it, though I’m entitled to my opinion (so what?).
The AUMF doesn’t say anything about a tactic. Read it. Words have meaning.
Whether or not it formally is a declaration of war on terrorism really isn’t the point. I was being a little cute there. In any case, what previous war would you compare the war against al Qaeda to, particularly given the broad scope of deference to the POTUS (on Battlefield Earth)?
What you can’t seem to grasp is that people might actually object to the AUMF itself, or at least aspects of it, so any justification for an act in question that rests on the AUMF is subject to criticism, even if the act was “legal” according ot the AUMF (as interpreted). The Patriot Act allowed for lots of things, too. Were you all-in for that? And do you ever disagree with a court decision, despite that fact that no one has to listen to you as far as the law is concerned?
And your argument is that hairshirthedonist gets to interpret the constitution as hairshirhedonist likes, and that hairshirt’s opinon should be binding on the country?
On the first part, of course I can. I can interpret anything as I like, as can you. Whether or not our respective interpretations make any sense or are compelling to anyone else is another question.
On the second, obviously not. Like I wrote before: Yeah, I can’t really do much about it, though I’m entitled to my opinion (so what?).
The AUMF doesn’t say anything about a tactic. Read it. Words have meaning.
Whether or not it formally is a declaration of war on terrorism really isn’t the point. I was being a little cute there. In any case, what previous war would you compare the war against al Qaeda to, particularly given the broad scope of deference to the POTUS (on Battlefield Earth)?
What you can’t seem to grasp is that people might actually object to the AUMF itself, or at least aspects of it, so any justification for an act in question that rests on the AUMF is subject to criticism, even if the act was “legal” according ot the AUMF (as interpreted). The Patriot Act allowed for lots of things, too. Were you all-in for that? And do you ever disagree with a court decision, despite that fact that no one has to listen to you as far as the law is concerned?
“Are you proving my point, that the President has a huge amount of power, so be careful who you vote for? What’s your solution?”
In this sentence, you efface the difference between power the President “has” in terms of de facto power, versus what s/he should have based on what the power the Constitution will not extend to him or her, the limits to power the President has when working in conjunction with Congress, etc.
Which one did you mean? Did you know that they are different things?
As for internment camps, I brought up the hypo of arabs being interned by the president as a possible consequence of your theory of executive power.
You responded by scoffing that it would not happen because other things would intervene to stop it.
I pointed out that U.S. citizen internment actually has happened before, that none of your cited stopgaps prevented it, and you respond by saying …
I’m proving your point?
If your point is a descriptive or positive one, i.e. “the president has the de facto power to order the assassination of U.S. citizens without due process of law,” among other things, you have been wasting our time. We saw it happen. However, I don’t believe that is your point.
If your point is a normative one, i.e. that the president should, if the Constitution is interpreted correctly, have the power to yadda yadda, then the example of Japanese-American internment does absolutely nothing to support you. It merely shows that it has happened, not that it should happen again.
If you think that the internment of U.S. citizens without due process of law should not happen again, how would you plan to stop it, if you assume that the President has the power to do it and that no other branch of government may review his determination? Keep in mind that under your interpretation of executive power, the President can declare any part of the U.S. “battlefield” and any U.S. citizen an “enemy combatant,” and then order that person executed without needing to show evidence, probable cause, or any other justification.
Can you tell me why you think the Constitution should be read as granting the President the power to order the assassination of U.S. citizens without due process of law? Keep in mind that Congress and the President acting together does not necessarily guarantee that their actions will be constitutional.
“Are you proving my point, that the President has a huge amount of power, so be careful who you vote for? What’s your solution?”
In this sentence, you efface the difference between power the President “has” in terms of de facto power, versus what s/he should have based on what the power the Constitution will not extend to him or her, the limits to power the President has when working in conjunction with Congress, etc.
Which one did you mean? Did you know that they are different things?
As for internment camps, I brought up the hypo of arabs being interned by the president as a possible consequence of your theory of executive power.
You responded by scoffing that it would not happen because other things would intervene to stop it.
I pointed out that U.S. citizen internment actually has happened before, that none of your cited stopgaps prevented it, and you respond by saying …
I’m proving your point?
If your point is a descriptive or positive one, i.e. “the president has the de facto power to order the assassination of U.S. citizens without due process of law,” among other things, you have been wasting our time. We saw it happen. However, I don’t believe that is your point.
If your point is a normative one, i.e. that the president should, if the Constitution is interpreted correctly, have the power to yadda yadda, then the example of Japanese-American internment does absolutely nothing to support you. It merely shows that it has happened, not that it should happen again.
If you think that the internment of U.S. citizens without due process of law should not happen again, how would you plan to stop it, if you assume that the President has the power to do it and that no other branch of government may review his determination? Keep in mind that under your interpretation of executive power, the President can declare any part of the U.S. “battlefield” and any U.S. citizen an “enemy combatant,” and then order that person executed without needing to show evidence, probable cause, or any other justification.
Can you tell me why you think the Constitution should be read as granting the President the power to order the assassination of U.S. citizens without due process of law? Keep in mind that Congress and the President acting together does not necessarily guarantee that their actions will be constitutional.
Okay, new post on the al-Awaki/Khan/etc. killings! Said The Red Queen.
Yes, I know it’s tl;dr. But notice all the links I didn’t quote from! 🙂
Argue with me over there now!
Okay, new post on the al-Awaki/Khan/etc. killings! Said The Red Queen.
Yes, I know it’s tl;dr. But notice all the links I didn’t quote from! 🙂
Argue with me over there now!
Raise marginal tax rates?!?! Are you crazy?!?!
Kill American citizens in foreign countries without due process? Um, okay…
HSH, do you think you might be mis-characterizing my positions a bit? Did I not specify my position on An-a-Al clearly as a very, very limited exception to the general rule? Have you looked at my position on tax increases in our last several discussions, some months ago?
Raise marginal tax rates?!?! Are you crazy?!?!
Kill American citizens in foreign countries without due process? Um, okay…
HSH, do you think you might be mis-characterizing my positions a bit? Did I not specify my position on An-a-Al clearly as a very, very limited exception to the general rule? Have you looked at my position on tax increases in our last several discussions, some months ago?
Maybe the AUMF was an adequate formalism to make killing Osama “lawful”, or maybe it wasn’t.
The AUMF, rightly or wrongly, very clearly authorizes the following:
Bin Laden very clearly is one of the persons involved.
IMVHO the case is far less clear for Al Awlaki. Association with the folks involved, energetic agreement with their agenda, possible evidence of operational involvement in subsequent efforts, yes yes and yes. But meeting the AUMF bar, very much not clear. Not unless we want to insert some kind of “six degrees of separation” clause.
And the lack of clarity is not helped by the lack of information. I could be wrong, but I can’t imagine it would be that hard for the President or one of his spokespersons to make a simple presentation of the case.
And I don’t think “proportionality” and “assassination of individuals via via air-to-ground missiles in contexts other than active battlefields” can be made to fit in the same sentence.
That’s pretty much where I’m coming from.
Al Awlaki lived by the sword, even if only rhetorically, and that’s how he died. I don’t take any pleasure in his death, nor do I shed any tears. Karma’s a bitch.
I’m just not interested in the US furthering its descent into rogue nationhood.
Maybe the AUMF was an adequate formalism to make killing Osama “lawful”, or maybe it wasn’t.
The AUMF, rightly or wrongly, very clearly authorizes the following:
Bin Laden very clearly is one of the persons involved.
IMVHO the case is far less clear for Al Awlaki. Association with the folks involved, energetic agreement with their agenda, possible evidence of operational involvement in subsequent efforts, yes yes and yes. But meeting the AUMF bar, very much not clear. Not unless we want to insert some kind of “six degrees of separation” clause.
And the lack of clarity is not helped by the lack of information. I could be wrong, but I can’t imagine it would be that hard for the President or one of his spokespersons to make a simple presentation of the case.
And I don’t think “proportionality” and “assassination of individuals via via air-to-ground missiles in contexts other than active battlefields” can be made to fit in the same sentence.
That’s pretty much where I’m coming from.
Al Awlaki lived by the sword, even if only rhetorically, and that’s how he died. I don’t take any pleasure in his death, nor do I shed any tears. Karma’s a bitch.
I’m just not interested in the US furthering its descent into rogue nationhood.
This is completely factually wrong.
See here for details.
Yes, and it dismissed the case solely on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. I quoted the part where the judge wrote on the troubling aspects.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Hamdi, MUNAF et al. v. GEREN, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, et al, Boumediene v. Bush, Rasul v. Bush, Rumsfeld v. Padilla… shall I keep going?
Cite to people having absolutely nothing whatever to do with al-Awaki.
But let me quote an authority on al Qaeda:
— Osama bin Laden.
Full transcript and context.
This is completely factually wrong.
See here for details.
Yes, and it dismissed the case solely on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. I quoted the part where the judge wrote on the troubling aspects.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Hamdi, MUNAF et al. v. GEREN, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, et al, Boumediene v. Bush, Rasul v. Bush, Rumsfeld v. Padilla… shall I keep going?
Cite to people having absolutely nothing whatever to do with al-Awaki.
But let me quote an authority on al Qaeda:
— Osama bin Laden.
Full transcript and context.
And the lack of clarity is not helped by the lack of information. I could be wrong, but I can’t imagine it would be that hard for the President or one of his spokespersons to make a simple presentation of the case.
On this, we could hardly agree more. Secrecy is overused, and will destroy us before it destroys our enemies.
And I’m not saying you’re wrong about Awlaki being a distinguishable case from Osama. But neither am I totally comfortable with the idea that anybody who became a “member of al-Qaida” after 9/11 is de facto (or do I mean, de jure?) outside the scope of that AUMF. The team’s roster may turn over, but it’s still the same team. True for baseball teams like “the Red Sox”, nations like “the US”, or groups like “al-Qaida”, IMHO.
The factual question (was Awlaki really a “member of al-Qaida”?) and the policy question (was he a high-enough-value target to be worth the possible blow-back?) are each important, and Obama may have got both answers wrong. It may well be that we will regret ever having given “the President” the power to answer such questions unilaterally.
But “the President”, like “the leader of al-Qaida”, is a position, not an individual. We still have the possibility, at least in theory, to rescind or modify the authority we granted to “the President” to kill leaders of al-Qaida. In practice, the best we can hope for is that “the President” will continue to be Barack Obama, for he is far likelier than any successor I can think of to declare some day that al-Qaida, the organization behind 9/11, is dead enough that we don’t need to keep killing its leaders.
–TP
And the lack of clarity is not helped by the lack of information. I could be wrong, but I can’t imagine it would be that hard for the President or one of his spokespersons to make a simple presentation of the case.
On this, we could hardly agree more. Secrecy is overused, and will destroy us before it destroys our enemies.
And I’m not saying you’re wrong about Awlaki being a distinguishable case from Osama. But neither am I totally comfortable with the idea that anybody who became a “member of al-Qaida” after 9/11 is de facto (or do I mean, de jure?) outside the scope of that AUMF. The team’s roster may turn over, but it’s still the same team. True for baseball teams like “the Red Sox”, nations like “the US”, or groups like “al-Qaida”, IMHO.
The factual question (was Awlaki really a “member of al-Qaida”?) and the policy question (was he a high-enough-value target to be worth the possible blow-back?) are each important, and Obama may have got both answers wrong. It may well be that we will regret ever having given “the President” the power to answer such questions unilaterally.
But “the President”, like “the leader of al-Qaida”, is a position, not an individual. We still have the possibility, at least in theory, to rescind or modify the authority we granted to “the President” to kill leaders of al-Qaida. In practice, the best we can hope for is that “the President” will continue to be Barack Obama, for he is far likelier than any successor I can think of to declare some day that al-Qaida, the organization behind 9/11, is dead enough that we don’t need to keep killing its leaders.
–TP
But “the President”, like “the leader of al-Qaida”, is a position, not an individual. We still have the possibility, at least in theory, to rescind or modify the authority we granted to “the President” to kill leaders of al-Qaida. In practice, the best we can hope for is that “the President” will continue to be Barack Obama, for he is far likelier than any successor I can think of to declare some day that al-Qaida, the organization behind 9/11, is dead enough that we don’t need to keep killing its leaders.
Thank you, TonyP. I can’t second, third, infinity that enough.
But “the President”, like “the leader of al-Qaida”, is a position, not an individual. We still have the possibility, at least in theory, to rescind or modify the authority we granted to “the President” to kill leaders of al-Qaida. In practice, the best we can hope for is that “the President” will continue to be Barack Obama, for he is far likelier than any successor I can think of to declare some day that al-Qaida, the organization behind 9/11, is dead enough that we don’t need to keep killing its leaders.
Thank you, TonyP. I can’t second, third, infinity that enough.
“In practice, the best we can hope for is that “the President” will continue to be Barack Obama, for he is far likelier than any successor I can think of to declare some day that al-Qaida, the organization behind 9/11, is dead enough that we don’t need to keep killing its leaders.”
If that’s the best we can hope for then why don’t we just make him King?
I’m also not sure where this “far likelier” comes from. It’s sort of convenient for a President to have the power to order people killed. Why would he want to give it up?
“In practice, the best we can hope for is that “the President” will continue to be Barack Obama, for he is far likelier than any successor I can think of to declare some day that al-Qaida, the organization behind 9/11, is dead enough that we don’t need to keep killing its leaders.”
If that’s the best we can hope for then why don’t we just make him King?
I’m also not sure where this “far likelier” comes from. It’s sort of convenient for a President to have the power to order people killed. Why would he want to give it up?
Donald, I suspect you recognize that “the best we can hope for” is a cliche. We can all “hope” for a much better president than Barack Obama the way we can all “hope” for a life after death. Hoping for the next election to turn out one way rather than the other is a different matter.
And the “far likelier” comes from the assumption that Ron Paul will not be Obama’s successor. I mean, seriously: can you name anybody other than that old coot who is 1)remotely liable to get elected president in 2012, and 2)more likely than Obama to stop taking pot shots at “high-value targets”?
–TP
Donald, I suspect you recognize that “the best we can hope for” is a cliche. We can all “hope” for a much better president than Barack Obama the way we can all “hope” for a life after death. Hoping for the next election to turn out one way rather than the other is a different matter.
And the “far likelier” comes from the assumption that Ron Paul will not be Obama’s successor. I mean, seriously: can you name anybody other than that old coot who is 1)remotely liable to get elected president in 2012, and 2)more likely than Obama to stop taking pot shots at “high-value targets”?
–TP
“)more likely than Obama to stop taking pot shots at “high-value targets”?
I think we’re arguing about the relative sizes of infinitesimal quantities.
“)more likely than Obama to stop taking pot shots at “high-value targets”?
I think we’re arguing about the relative sizes of infinitesimal quantities.