You are here: Home » General » The Star Chamber
If you think this process isn’t an invitation for the worst sort of abuses, you must have been in a coma for most of the last decade. And it is striking how spotty and lacking in specifics about actual terrorist activity even the unrebutted, unchecked case against Awlaki is.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Paul Campos, Above the Law 2011 Lawyer of the Year
Erik Loomis, HNN Cliopatria 2011 Best Series of Posts
Get free advice on Law
Enter an top online casino where gaming is taken to the next level. Experience over 130 titles for pure casino action and fantastic site promotions.
Spin the Reels and enjoy the cash-filled at these top no deposit casinos.
Try your luck at the best online casino with games like slots, video poker, or play blackjack online with all the fun of a real casino.
Whaddaya know….an actual Death Panel!
and one supported by Republicans
Well of course they support it. They always support killing people.
Well, non-white/rich/Christian ones anyway.
No chance for abuse or error here, no sir!
Move along, nothing to see here…
And this is the Democrats?
Sheeeesh…
There are definitely times when it gets difficult to see the difference these days.
But this was completely authorized by the AUMF, Obama is prosecuting a very narrowly defined war against “Al Qaeda”, we shouldn’t worry about this because Al-Awlaki was a rilly rilly bad person, and only foolish civil liberties purists who are a stupid vanishingly small minority and objectively pro-Al-Qaeda could ever complain about this sort of thing.
Or, as Britney Spears, the muse of executive authority, put it:
Really, is this a surprise to anyone? Cue vociferous apologists and technical legalism hairsplitters now.
Your comment is like a wingnut’s parody of liberals.
Yes, noting the existence of Congressional authorization is like Britney Spears’ comment.
Whatever gets you through the night.
Back atcha.
I’m stunned you were able to lay off the “rubber/glue” saying.
Comments like yours are why I’ve been avoiding these threads. There’s really point trying to converse with someone whose priorities are putting on a display of outrage and demeaning those who fall off the One True Path.
I call them “The Purity Police,” or “patrol.”
They’re as bad as the hard-core rightie lemmings.
Wow, from you? Noted.
No, they’re really not.
In terms of the moral implications, no, obviously they’re not.
From a logical standpoint it’s pretty much the same thing, as both have an annoying tendency to conflate “I think that’s a bad thing to do” with “doing that thing is illegal!”
Yeah, that goes a bit far.
Once again, is there ANYTHING that Obama has done that you disagree with?
Yup.
Now your turn: have you noticed that you haven’t written a single word on this subject except to personally insult people who don’t agree with you?
This – psychobabble about motives – is the only thing you are interested in talking about.
Care to actual elaborate on what in particular, as I have not seen any evidence of this.
This is what you want to talk about?
I. Rest. My. Case.
I’ve talked about what I disagreed with on the threads where it was relevant. Heck, I’ve actually expressed disagreement with some of what Obama has done on this particular thread, and said what I would prefer be done instead.
But you didn’t see that, either. What a shocker.
Actually, your responses on this issue have appeared a bit inconsistent to me at least, so I was not exactly sure where you stood on it. I appreciate the clarification. Also, I was responding to your attack on Holden, who seems to be sincerely outraged by this.
Obama is a brilliant strategist on domestic policy which fortunately compensates for his illiberal inclinations regarding foreign affairs. Cut him some slack. I’m sure the process through which this decision was reached will come under review by a secret committee which will then amend any problematic issues as they arise. There’s really nothing to worry about. We all know Romney/Perry would abuse this power in an even more horrific manner.
.. the hell, joe?
I really wish you’d stop imputing sinister hidden motives and outright deception to those who disagree with you.
You and Brien go after a number of people, including me, pretty hard downthread. You hurl a lot of snark and invective in posts that don’t have a lot of substance to them OTHER than hurling snark and invective.
And that’s fine, to an extent. Snark and invective are a fine old internet tradition here at LGM. But the fact that you’re doing so doesn’t mean you are concerned with ‘putting on a display’. It means you think that they have said things worthy of snark and invective.
I’m not privy to, say, Holden’s innermost thoughts, of course. But I think that he’s GENUINELY outraged and that his interest is in winning the political argument rather than his top priorities being putting on a fake display of outrage and demeaning people who think differently.
That might make him WRONG. It doesn’t make him the empty shell you impute him being.
I haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re talking about.
And I haven’t the foggiest idea why my objecting to “Once again, is there ANYTHING that Obama has done that you disagree with?” as a reply to a substantive comment I made is supposed to justify this comment of yours.
Um. I wasn’t responding to that sub-thread.
If you check the nests carefully, my comment above is a reply to this:
I didn’t weigh in on you talking to DrDick at all.
Well, I would like to see the AUMF terminated. It’s been long enough. Complaining about the operations of the perpetual war state without observing that the problem is the existence of the perpetual war state is pretty silly, imop.
Huh – all I’ve been hearing is how this is an ugly, but necessary, part of modern life. Deeply depressing how easily we have gone from “Constitution, F*ck yeah!” to “F*ck the Constitution, yeah!”. That famous Goering quote about how easy it is to get an ostensibly civilized people to agree to the destruction of their own democracy comes to mind. After how many thousands of years and dozens of examples, we still enthusiastically make the same mistakes. We’re not very bright, we humans; or else we don’t really want ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, even in the watered-down versions we so often set up.
I just assumed that putting citizens on death lists was standard operating procedure, when deemed necessary, for all governments and other criminal organizations since the dawn of civilization.
It’s what nation-states do.
And old, mordant joke:
Fred Hampton died a natural death.
What? How could you say that?
You get shot that many times, it’s only natural that you’re gonna die.
There needs to be at least some counter advocacy. If we put a Canadian on the list, and the Canadian government finds out about it, they would at least want to know why it was being done. They would advocate for the target.
This isn’t a state of emergency. We don’t have half the country in the hands of rebels with an army of tens of thousands a week’s march from Washington. We have the luxury of due process. Even if there is some Constitutional argument for making these decisions the way they are being made, the Constitution is a low bar for deciding if something is right or wrong.
People who are not clearly combattants deserve the advocacy of their government to protect them from violence. If they are citizens of this country, they deserve advocacy from some part of our government which is independent of the targetting process. That can’t be Barack Obama.
They would advocate for the target
They would? Maher Arar, Omar Khadr and Brenda Martin might have a few choice words about that.
I am so ashamed of my government over this. Even if those people were guilty, governments sworn duty was to appendix and punish rich here in Canada.
Disgrace is too weak a word.
“If we put a Canadian on the list, and the Canadian government finds out about it, they would at least want to know why it was being done. They would advocate for the target.”
Much as I love my country, I gotta disagree with your rosy view of the Canadian government.
Examples: Maher Arar’s extraordinary rendition would not have been possible without Project O. Also teh Harper government’s actions with regards to Omar Khadr seem to contradict your assertion.
Well, to be more accurate, they should and could advocate for their citizen. It would at least require the failure of two seperate entities for someone who is not a combattant to be targetted.
Having people in jail because they had a bad lawyer is a step up from having them there without a trial.
You want some pushback on “drone death lists”, put some Israelis on it.
This is a much better criticism than most of that which has come out.
The targeting decisions being made are no different from how they’ve been made in every other war we’ve fought. The question is, should they be? We’re always reminded that “this is a different type of war” – well, yes it is. Part of that observation is noting that the systems designed to make decisions and take actions are too blunt to account for the higher levels of uncertainty and nuance in this type of war.
Congress could use its “regulations for the conduct” powers, or conditions its war powers, in a way that set up a different kind of structure for making these decisions. As a model, they could look at the immigration “courts,” which aren’t actually judicial bodies at all, but executive branch forums whose operations are laid out in legislation.
Some of us think the fact that we’re at ‘war’ at all is farcical and quasi-illegitimate.
I think I said this to you on another thread, but though that’s a legitimate opinion to hold, it has absolutely no bearing on the question. Agree with it or not, Congress did pass the AUMF.
Well, if you take it as a given that Congress can’t invoke its war powers against al Qaeda, then it follows that killing Awlaki is illegitimate.
But no one has ever been able to put together any plausible argument why they can’t.
But then you get Kenneth “No Relation” Anderson @ Volokhblog saying that mere advocacy of hostility to America suffices to justify the assassination of an overseas American citizen.
I mean, why the hell not?
Also: in previous wars, how many American citizens were deemed the enemy and ordered to be killed purely by executive decision, without review?
I’m guessing the answer is “zero.”
Ezra Pound: shoulda been blowed up or what?
in previous wars, how many American citizens were deemed the enemy and ordered to be killed purely by executive decision, without review?
I’m guessing the answer is “zero.”
About a hundred thousand.
“Different kind of war” has a bit of truth to it. The speed and complexity with which the world and world economies are interconnected creates a “playing field” (so to speak) in which terrorist organizations have quite a leg up now, and nation states are rather fractured from the jump in their manner of dealing with them —such as not having agreement on terms and labels.
The structure of the U.S. government (which is essentially the same now as it was in the 40′s) is inadequate to many tasks, as is the United Nations with the t-totally-top heavy Security Council.
I wanted to bring up some of the principles laid out in the Hart-Rudmann report but am having a hard time getting it formatted so that I can copy-cut-and paste. I think what ended up being Homeland Security is not quite what that truly bipartisan project was recommending—it is, as you say, “blunt”. Our government needs a considerable amount of restructuring. The Cold War is long gone. The current structure of our security and defense apparatus is a mal-adapted relic of the biggest, fattest, priciest, most homicidal leviathon ever spawned. It’s fucking psycho-pathological. (I say that as a veteran of nuclear forces.) It is blunt, clumsy, indiscriminately destructive. We need nuanced, nimble, and precisely limited.
Due process isn’t a fucking luxury. It’s what separates us from thugs and tyrants. If it is only to be invoked when its easy, it means nothing.
And in the situation you describe, there is, in fact, a process covering it that can be invoked. It’s called ‘declaring martial law.’ Which has its own rules and frameworks to be worked within.
With the law being what it is, I don’t see a particularly compelling case that al-Awlaki’s due process rights were violated.
with an army of tens of thousands a week’s march from Washington
why? how long does it take to march there from Wall Street?
:)
Not the current Canadian government. They’re worse than the teabaggers.
Why do you continue to link to that hack, Greenwald?
If there is any useful point in anything he writes, it will be made more intelligently, more honestly, more accurately, more fairly, and without the deliberate effort to pick fights with political opponents, by a better writer and thinker.
If there is any useful point in anything he writes, it will be made more intelligently, more honestly, more accurately, more fairly, and without the deliberate effort to pick fights with political opponents, by a better writer and thinker.
From you, this.
Pro trolling, Joe.
DNFFT.
One of the common rationalizations regarding Awlaki is that he could have surrendered to US authorities and avoided his death.
The problem there is that the US has spent a decade proving that it doesn’t give terrorism suspects due process, fair trials and even tortures them. So far Obama seems to have actually stopped the last (excepting isolation for the moment) but I could hardly blame anyone in the Arab or Islamic world for being dubious of that. Not only might Obama be lying, but he’s left torture as a political decision each president makes, and the next Republican president can just flip back on the torture switch, and apparently pay no legal consequences for that.
America has a serious credibility gap in how it treats people it captures, and it is going to take decades to repair the damage, even if there was serious political resolve to right these issues.
Even if you were completely innocent, I could hardly blame anyone accused of terrorism by the US for being reluctant to surrender.
So if you’re accused, your choices are “surrender to certain conviction and possible mistreatment” or “possible death if they can catch you.”
Honestly I don’t think the powers that be mind that most will choose the latter, it may even be considered a benefit of the whole no-due-process program. Obama wants to close Gitmo, he doesn’t want more prisoners there.
Why do you hate our country and our president?
That’s a pretty big reach given SCOTUS decisions on the subject and al-Awlaki’s citizenship.
I’d call it a medium reach. Padilla eventually received due process, but there is no question the executive branch wanted to deny it to him. Al Awlaki’s actions would have given the government a possible case that he forfeited his citizenship. Then he could be sent to Gitmo. He could be held there until a future administration allowed torture.
I find it unlikely, but it isn’t impossible.
I’d be amazed though, if that is what kept him from surrendering. He believed Americans – any Americans – should be killed. That doesn’t necessarily make him a combattant, but I don’t think he’d decide to be one of us.
Well I guess that’s fair enough, but on the other hand, if we can make a reasonable case that he forfeited his citizenship, wouldn’t that apply to killing him as well?
You have to make that case first.
A) I’m not sure you do.
B) Make the case to whom?
The Sooper-Seekrit Targeting Authorities that have the right to target you under the AUMF, apparently.
Ya know, not that I wouldn’t be happy to see a better process, but what exactly is the nightmare scenario that’s just around the corner from this, exactly? That I can’t vacation in Western Europe or Australia without fear of death-by-drone? That a CIA wet work team might shoot at me from the woods as I sit at my desk? We can talk a lot about process and all, but other than the possibility of error, I really have a hard time seeing what jump is supposed to be made from the specific set of circumstances involving al-Awlaki.
In other words, you haven’t been accused of anything, so no biggie?
I don’t think we should trust our government so much.
Then shouldn’t it be relatively easy to spell out exactly what terrible new future awaits us?
That this kind of behavior becomes more generalized and not limited Muslimy brown people. I agree with Marek that it sets a very bad precedent.
So, you get nervous when the U.S. military attacks officials of countries we’re at war at, or you only care because this guy had nominal citizenship as an American?
We have been over this before, but but will clarify for those with short memories. I do not care about attacks on government officials of countries we are at war with. I do care about attacks on officials of countries we are not at war with (Salvador Allende, the Contras, Hugo Chavez, etc.). I also set a much higher bar for US citizens than for non-citizens.
So far as I have seen, there is no compelling evidence linking Alawki directly to the Al Qaeda organization that stage the 9/11 attacks. There are so many aspirational “Al Qaedas” out there with nothing to do with the original organization that I tend to be skeptical about this. The fact that he was investigated for this while in the US, but no charges were brought suggests that he had no such ties. I also have a big problem with “declaring war on” (which we actually did not do, as the AUMF is not a declaration of war) NGOs, especially those whose identity and structure is as loose and amorphous as Al Qaeda’s.
All of which, again, is pretty much immaterial to anything.
Care to explain that rather off hand dismissal? How is it immaterial to whether this sets a bad precedent?
Because what you have a problem with has nothing to do with what the law is.
And that’s ok!
You’re allowed to argue against the government doing something on the grounds that it is just plain a bad idea!
You don’t have to use the words “illegal” and “unconstitutional” like so much red, white, and blue crepe paper dressing up a legion hall for a speech.
^Exactly.
You asked why I thought this was a bad precedent and I answered and your response is simply to dismiss it because it may not have standing in law (which you do not in any way demonstrate). I think a case could be made that it is in violation of the law and the constitution, though I am not a legal scholar and not interested in making that case. Your response, however, is immaterial to the matter at hand as there are many things which are or have been legal which were very bad things. Segregation comes to mind.
Segregation wasn’t legal. A racist establishment said it was for awhile, so I guess this could be construed however you want based on whether you think that it’s legal or not, but it wasn’t like the government said, “you know what, segregation is wrong and we should change our policy,” a subsequent court came along and declared it illegal.
Segregation wasn’t legal.
Really? That is funny, because Jim Crow Laws and Sundowner laws were on the books all over the country (not just in the South) and actively enforced when I was growing up. I still remember segregated drinking fountains and attended segregated schools for the first few years. It was perfectly legal and widely accepted until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You clearly demonstrate that you have no freaking idea what you are talking about.
And under contemporary interpretation, those laws violated the Constitution. Which is to say, they were illegal.
also, the AUMF only applies to those organizations and peope that attacked us on 9-11. If it can’t be shown that al-Awlaki’s Al Qaeda was one of these the AUMF does not apply
And under contemporary interpretation, those laws violated the Constitution. Which is to say, they were illegal.
Some of them did. Not all of them. Which is why we needed a Civil Rights Act and a Voting Rights Act.
Fair enough.
And under contemporary interpretation, those laws violated the Constitution.
The operant word in that statement is “current”. At the time, they were perfectly legal and the Supreme Court had previously upheld segregation. The fact that they subsequently became illegal, mostly owing to the Civil Rights Act (Brown only directly overturned educational segregation), is totally irrelevant to this discussion, other than to make my point for me.
That they take the same approach to establishing someone’s connections to al Qaeda that Dick Cheney took to establishing the WMD thread and the connections between al Qaeda and the Baathists, and end up using the power Congress authorized for use against al Qaeda to kill someone in the pursuit of some other agenda.
Obviously, the “any American, anywhere, can be killed” performance is silly, but what about, say, someone who raises money for Hezbollah? Staff the targeting board with true believers who are answerable to the “prosecution,” present them with a cherry-picked case that the guy had contacts with someone in al Qaeda, and nobody independent is making the decision, or even rigorously looking at the case.
See? That wasn’t so hard.
Well, I’m actually make an effort.
And one I pretty much concur with. But saying the process should be improved isn’t nearly the same thing as saying this is illegal or even especially horrific all things considered.
The people saying this is illegal or even especially horrific are not concerned with making sure this a good process to get this right.
They don’t think that blowing up al Qaeda members can be “right.”
It’s like talking with a devoted libertarian about what standards the EPA should use to set emissions levels for mercury. There is no set of standards that will be good enough. When he complains about there being a problem in the process, it’s not because he’s interested in making that process work, but in discrediting it so it cannot work.
We don’t?
I have an acquaintance or two who served overseas in front-line positions. They blew up a fair number of guys who were almost certainly al-Qaeda members. I’m pretty okay with that.
Oddly, I’m OK with this too. I think that we should not have been in Afghanistan in the way we were (or are), nor that we should have been in Iraq at all ever, but I can’t fault the soldiers for doing the job the civilian leadership tasked them with doing.
I do love the waving of the bloody shirt, though.
OK, Murc, in your case, I’ll amend it to “They don’t think that blowing up al Qaeda members who are not openly carrying arms and fighting in a conventional war can be right.”
Interesting. At least if you hold the “we can’t wage war against non-government entities.” Since we never recognized the Taliban as the governing authority of Afghanistan, how could we legally wage war on them?
Could you at least look up your cliches before you deploy them?
“Waving the bloody shirt” refers to invoking people’s deaths to justify action. An example would be the constant references to the WTC attacks that characterized the 2008 Republican Convention.
There is nothing even remotely similar to that in my comment. You’re just throwing out cliches you’ve come to believe are useful in a debate.
This is closer. You could, of course, construct a scenario in which I would think it is right to blow up an Al-Qaeda member not openly carrying arms etc. and I’d think it would be right. But yeah, more or less.
My position is, and always has been, that these guys are criminal dirtbags. They’re Baader-Meinhof, they’re the Weathermen. You act against them as you would any other criminal gang.
The Taliban were a government. They exercised sovereignty over Afghanistan. They raised an army, they collected taxes, etc. We might not have recognized them de jure, but we sure as hell treated them as one de facto.
I’ll be the first to admit there tends to be some wiggle room for this sort of thing on the margins. Is a Somali warlord a governing authority? When did the PRC come into existence? When did the Confederate States become a government?
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, to be honest. In the context of the ongoing discussion I get the impression its along the lines of ‘if it was okay to declare war on taliban-run Afghanistan, it was okay to declare war on Al-Qaeda.’ But I legitimately can’t tell.
It’s probably obvious, but that was in fact me.
The number of people who seemed to have been wrongly imprisoned as terrorists, and the degree to which terrorism inspired law has been been co-opted by the drug war should at least provide a little fodder for your imagination.
But when you are talking about putting people to death, I’m really surprised that you could throw the phrase:
out the window as if that isn’t enough of a nightmare.
Meh, the likelihood of error doesn’t seem all that high to me, if only because it’s so narrow. Even in this case, the main dispute seems to be whether al-Awlaki had a major role in operations or was “just a propagandist.” In either case, it’s not as though his involvement with al Qaeda is really in question.
The “other than error” line was mostly to say that I was interested in other things though.
Chew on this “other than error” for a little while and see if it doesn’t give you pause about the moral, ethical, and, least of all, political dangers of empowering a secret, completely unaccountable assassination council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair
That means…what?
There should be a mass execution at Gitmo tomorrow, according to Brien.
More entertainingly, go read the Hamdi v Rumsfeld decision about “blank check” and the requirements of due process
Why would being okay with the military striking at targets at large mean one must be okay with summary executions of combatants in custody, exactly?
Right.
This is where I think our nightmarish record with the death penalty is relevant. We have lots of processes and rules in place to prevent errors, and they’re still frequently inadequate. The process outlined here has far less. From where I sit “other than the possibility of error” is a kind of “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play” sort of move.
On the other hand, it’s pretty obviously possible to have a functioning justice system without employing the death penalty. How would a war without tactical strikes against the opponent work, exactly?
I suppose it’s a good thing we’re not involved in another never-ending war on a non-specific non-state entity, a war with lots of money and weapons involved, with lots of people traveling in and out of the country. You know, like the War on Drugs, for example.
And in fighting this war, I’m sure we won’t be using drones — just for surveillance at first, sure; just against non-citizens at first, of course. That’s totally inconceivable.
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2011/03/us-sends-drones-to-fight-mexican-drug.html
Though later, considering the amount of death and destruction these evil people cause, I’m sure both Democrats and Republicans will join in calling for secret killings of American drug lords without judicial oversight. And their henchmen, as collateral damage. And any users that get in the way. And any bystanders.
But I’m sure that applying the same “The President is always right; no need for courts” standard to the War on Drugs as is now applied to the War on Terror won’t provoke any consternation from other liberals here or elsewhere, will it? It’s not like it might affect us more directly or anything, eh?
Has Congress formally authorized military action against any states or non-state entities under the banner of the War on Drugs?
For that matter, are “drugs” the equivalent of “al Qaeda?”
Well no, but I assumed he was talking about the “war on terror,” which is a fair enough point. Though you are correct that it’s rather important that Congress authorized action against a specific entity.
The irony is, the people who seem to think that it is of no consequence were often the most vociferous in denouncing the Bush administration for fighting a “War on Terror” on the grounds that it wasn’t a war against a specific entity.
The cartels are exactly like Al Qaeda.
Has Congress authorized military action against the cartels?
I can think of a couple of significant differences:
Congress never invoked its war powers against the cartels.
As bad as things are in Mexico, the cartels are still operating within areas that are within the reach of the Mexican state. They’re not safely “behind the lines,” outside of the practical jurisdiction of a responsible government, the way Awlaki and his buddies were. Drug cartel members, even top-level ones, get arrested all the time.
But you’re missing a rather key point: Tom Allen didn’t equate the war against al Qaeda to a theoretical war against the drug cartels, but to the metaphorical “War on Drugs.”
That is a pretty weak distinction there.
I find it very hard to believe that someone sitting on that panel is ever going to speak up and say “Yes, he is an enemy combattant, but we shouldn’t assassinate him because we can’t prove his association with al Qaeda.”
Similarly, if Congress were to provide a similar authorization concerning the Mexican Cartels, I would expect to find that the demand for proof of association to fall to nothing as well.
Well that’s a good argument for adding a layer of independent oversight to the process, to make sure there’s an actual case to be made that the target is involved with al Qaeda.
While it is nice to see the same establishment trusting “What’s the worst that can happen” that I see when I do my normal libertarian act, this doesn’t seem to be a particularly strong version of it.
I look at the way in which the Patriot Act has been used in law enforcement for a vantage point on this question. Take the “Sneak and Peak” warrant for example. Even though it was passed as a provision under the Patriot Act, 65% of the time the warrants were used in the drug war. Only .5% were used to combat terrorism. The ridiculous “Combat Methamphetamine Act” that was Obama enhanced and extended last year was passed as a provision of the Patriot Act.
Congress is always happy to apply heavy-handed (and outrageous IMO) civil-liberties restrictions and abuses devised to combat terrorism into the service of the Drug War. That, combined with the overwhelming trend of militarism of urban police forces, makes me believe the AUMF is not particularly necessary in forecasting worst-case, nightmare scenarios.
Setting a precedent that such assassinations are morally appropriate, to me, is far more dangerous than any precedent that such assassinations are legally appropriate.
That doesn’t make any sense. Congress has authorized military action against al Qaeda under the authority of its war-making powers, so it’s only natural that the military is going to go around “assassinating” al Qaeda officials. That’s what you do in a war. Congress hasn’t authorized any actual military action under the “war on drugs” banner, so one simply has nothing to do with the other. I’ll grant that someone could try to make the leap from one to the other, but there wouldn’t be any legal basis for it, so this would represent another matter entirely.
And in any case, all of this rests on obfuscating the AUMF to equate the “war on terror” in general with the amorphous “war on drugs.” But in this case, there’s no legitimacy to that at all because Congress did authorize military action against al Qaeda specifically.
Expanding on my points for clarity:
1. Police forces around the country are rapidly increasing their use of militaristic techniques. We have all seen multiple videos of police raids that seemed designed to ignite to very quick and very violent resolutions rather than to bring drug suspects to court.
2. Both Congress and law enforcement officials have shown a very strong propensity to portray drug producers and sellers as “terrorists”, and with the situation in Mexico, we can expect to see much more of that sort of equivocation.
3. This sort of assassination of terrorism suspects, away from any sort of active combat zone without a real firm understanding of what their actual roles are stretches the definition of “War” to something similar to that used in the phrase “War on Drugs”.
I am relatively new to this whole game, but I’m not entirely comfortable with the reliance on the AUMF to set the limits of when this sort of strategy is used.
1. Has nothing to do with anything pertaining to this matter.
2. Are they alleging them to be members of al Qaeda?
3. Well, that’s nice, but again, it doesn’t really have anything to do with the legality of things. And I have trouble taking anyone who uses the “active combat zone” obfuscation seriously.
In my somewhat worst-case scenario, due-process free killings under the guise of the drug war would become legal.
I don’t see why you ask about future nightmare scenarios, and then keep responding with “legality” objections when that is subject to change in the future.
A question: Is Al Qaeda actually mentioned by name in the AUMF?
2. Are they alleging them to be members of al Qaeda?In what may be a first, we agree on something.
Why does there have to be a ‘nightmare’ scenario?
The U.S government has declared that it has the legal right to pop anyone in the world, at any time, anywhere, on its own unreviewable, secret, say-so.
Now, yes, there are real practical limitations against it doing so to a whole host of people. But I feel comfortable saying that if it is allowed to stand, eventually its going to be abused and abused horrifically, and when people get outraged about it there WILL NOT be a legal remedy.
“The U.S government has declared that it has the legal right to pop anyone in the world, at any time, anywhere, on its own unreviewable, secret, say-so.”
Welcome to, like, 100 years ago.
and that somehow makes it right?
Except that now, they can actually follow through. At will. In minutes. Anywhere on the globe.
It’s one thing to plan and carry out the assassination of an admiral in ww2, that took months of prep and thousands of people working together to accomplish. Quite another to pop a guy in two minutes wiha drone based on a few pics of what will later turn out to be a goddamn wedding.
When party leaders are calling leaders of the other party “traitors” and comparing them to Hitler, I see where such a secret committee might be engaged to take out the competition in an electoral race—like Nixon with a secret gun squad or a Stasi kind of thing.
That I can’t vacation in Western Europe or Australia without fear of death-by-drone? That a CIA wet work team might shoot at me from the woods as I sit at my desk?
Thank you, Soullite.
Hunter Thompson:
“We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world, a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us. No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we’ll kill you. Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush? They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali locked up for refusing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hate mongers among us; they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis. And I am too old to worry about whether they like it or not. Fuck them”.
Every ten years or so, we need to pick up some small crappy little politician and throw it against the wall, just to read it this quote.
Not that it would help.
What a gratifying read that was. Thnx.
Look on the bright side. Al-Awlaki now has standing to maintain suit in federal court.
AFAIK now he DOESN’T (he’s dead.) I believe his parents do now as his heirs (probably) and they could bring a wrongful death or 1983 action. IIRC Al Alwaki always did have standing, but never came to the US jurisdiction to prosecute his case.
IIRC Al Alwaki always did have standing, but never came to the US jurisdiction to prosecute his case.
What case was that?
The verbiage is a little confusing.
Al-Awlakis family attempted to file suit to make the government stop trying to kill him. It was declared they lacked standing to do so because they weren’t him. (I’d be interested in the results if the parents of a minor child tried the same thing.)
Al-Awlaki would theoretically have always had standing to come and file that suit himself.
Isn’t the main reason that evidence can’t be presented publicly is that it may reveal intelligence-gathering methods, etc.? Knowing HOW someone knows something is part of evaluating what they claim to know, and airing that information publicly probably isn’t particularly prudent. Even if the process involved a special Senate working group, you’d still have the same level of secrecy.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with this process as long as it doesn’t apply to US citizens. I think you have to clear a higher bar when a US citizen is involved, and to me that means arresting and trying him or her. Execution sets a dangerous precedent.
Hooray for giant loopholes created by choosing the right place to be born!
Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn’t offer the same protection to foreigners not on US soil as it does citizens. If you want to call that a loophole, I guess you can. As someone else noted in this thread, these sort of targeting processes are a part of any war. That this one is unconventional doesn’t change that fact. I agree, it’s not particularly satisfying that foreigners should get treated differently than citizens in situations like this. I think that’s the difference between what the Constitution requires and the ethics of war.
The Constitution doesn’t prohibit the American state from killing American citizens who support the efforts of an entity the American state is waging a war against, either.
I don’t think the Constitution contemplates war with entities, for whatever little that may be worth. Somehow we gave up on the whole legislative declaration of war thing a long time ago?
I don’t really think it’s much of a stretch from declaring war on a state to declaring war on non-state entities. There have certainly been wars fought against entities that weren’t officially recognized states.
I’m sorry I think I missed that Declaration of War (in other but the metaphorical sense) can you tell me when both houses of congress declared it?
Doesn’t this mean that, no matter how strong the evidence is against an American-born al Qaeda terrorist who is operating out of another country, we cannot take any action against him unless we can arrest him?
There has to be something in between “unreviewed designation” and “do nothing” in the case of an American-born, covertly-operating wartime enemy who is safely “behind the lines.”
Better question; what about the non-citizens he’s holed up with? Does that mean we can’t target them if they can manage to get paired up with an American citizen companion?
Why?
Because allowing terrorists to operate with impunity also sets a bad precedent.
What Ugh said.
If a criminal makes it to a country with a non-extradition treaty, we let him go. In fact, its illegal for us to do anything BUT let him go.
People seem to be okay with that.
Which would be relevant if not for the existence of the AUMF.
Look, Brien, these people can’t be bothered to think about every little piece of legislation passed by Congress and how the actions of the executive comport with it.
They’re defending the rule of law fer chrissakes!
Even Congress is constrained by the Constitution. Ignoring their Constitutional role declaring war has been their downfall. No one is going to stop them, but it is wrong.
There’s never been any holding that the only way Congress can exercise its warmaking powers is by declaring a formal state of war. And even if there were, I’m not sure that “authorizes military action against” and “declares war on” is really that much of a distinction.
I actually dislike AUMFs instead of straight war declarations as a matter of policy, but there is nothing unconstitutional about Congress utilizing its powers that way.
It’s no different from using its “interstate commerce” powers to authorize the EPA to designate pollutants, instead of writing the designation into the legislation.
Actually the Constitution gives the Congress the sole responsibility of declaring war. The difference is that AUMF give the Executive the de facto power to start wars, especially when they are as broad as the September 2011 AUMF.
But as I have said, if the branches of government conspire together to destroy the checks and balances built-in to the Constitution, there is no institution that will stop them. A declaration of war and an AUMF ARE NOT the same thing though.
How do you square this with the “international law” position you took below? Seems like you’re saying here that we don’t have to respect international law as long as the AUMF is in play, or at least domestically, it would not be illegal for us to kill that person.
The AUMF has to comport to international law. There’s nothing about this action that violates international law.
Clear enough?
This has nothing to do with the laws regarding the prosecution of a war.
Maybe some of us think the fact that we’re treating the current situation as a war, HOWEVER LEGAL IT IS, is farcical and quasi-illegitimate.
More to the point, just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. I expect my government to operate within a framework of both legality AND correctness, and to always err on the side of ‘don’t use violence’ whenever either is in doubt.
I realize that this is somewhat unrealistic, but the alternative is to just throw my hands up and give up.
“Maybe some of us think the fact that we’re treating the current situation as a war, HOWEVER LEGAL IT IS, is farcical and quasi-illegitimate.”
It can’t be quasi illegitimate. Either Congress has the authority to authorize military action against al Qaeda or they don’t. There can’t be a third way about it.
Alternatively, you’re again substituting your personal policy preferences for the law (i.e. legitimacy).
Congress has the power to do a lot of things. That doesn’t make those things either right, or wholly legitimate.
Maybe I shouldn’t have used ‘quasi-illegitimate.’ What sort of term would you use for a ‘war’ that means ‘it was a stupid idea, sold to the country under false pretenses, prosecuted by men who were at best incompetent and at worst evil, maintained out of fear, ignorance and malevolence?’
Your comment:
I discussed the question’s legality because YOU brought it up.
You’re absolutely correct, joe. I was unclear in my intent.
Your comment, the one that began this nested thread, seemed to imply that you think that if we can’t get to a criminal under the normal rules of due process, there needs to be another way of getting at him.
My response was meant to say ‘but that’s not true. As things currently stand, there are situations in which we can’t get to a criminal under the normal rules of due process, we leave him be. In fact, leaving him be is so uncontroversial that we specifically have laws demanding that we do so.’
That’s where I was going. My bringing up the law in that context was more in the nature of an illustrative example than actually making a direct point.
How strong is the evidence Joe?
There are classified venues for other purposes, like applying for warrants with classified probable cause. Having our intelligence services make the case to a judge who is not subject to political pressures, opposed by an advocate who is at least employed by a different government department, would be a step up.
Secret judges holding secret trials to determine the life or death of a citizen isn’t exactly satisfying, but it would be a step up. If nothing else, it would create a court record of what the justification was, which would not be in the custody of the intelligence agency which made the determination. As it is, if we do kill someone who is later shown to clearly be a non-combattant, I imagine the casefile would wind up burned like the torture interrogation tapes.
“Having our intelligence services make the case to a judge who is not subject to political pressures, opposed by an advocate who is at least employed by a different government department, would be a step up.”
Can’t imagine how that’s going to end up being anything other than either a rubber stamp or a locked door.
The career potential for the judge who says no to an operation, or the “advocate” in opposition who is actually successful, is nil. This isn’t JAG, where you are defending a guy AFTER THE FACT. If you win, and the guy ends up in a video bragging about killing 20 servicemen in Kenya? If you rule no, and the guy ends up driving a bus full of bombs into the superbowl? Doesn’t really matter how iffy the government’s case was, does it?
These are ultra probable cause hearings (and those aren’t that hot – I can get probable cause to search your house in about 30 minutes). This is where Greenwald loses me. As a practical matter, I can’t figure out how they’re supposed to work.
I just wish the hacks would admit what everyone knows to be true:
Obama didn’t murder this guy because of anything he did. He murdered this man because he didn’t like what the man was saying. Everything else is bullshit used to justify or rationalize.
I guess this means you’re worried you’re next?
Well, we have an unaccountable, secret targeting organization which keeps no records of its decisions. This is pretty much exactly the definition of rule of men over rule of law, and it operates under the fig leaf of a 10 year old one-sentence “go out and kill-em-all” resolution.
So while soullite is probably not currently a target, there’s no reason that soullite couldn’t be a target other than it would be a waste of a Hellfire.
More to the point, while soullite certainly ISN’T next (Brien has pointed out that there are genuine political and practical limitations on when the government makes someone eat a missile) there is currently no legal reason he couldn’t be, and in the extremely unlikely hypothetical that he WERE, the current position of the executive is that it would be totally legal and nobody could be held accountable.
Now you’re just being silly. I assume soullite is in the United States, so please, show me where anyone has asserted the state’s authority to carry out a military attack against any U.S. citizen within the U.S. borders.
Not unless there is a state of insurreection and the civil courts aren’t operating.
Here’s the text of the AUMF. Show me where it says that the military (or, apparently, the CIA, since they’re also running drones with missiles) can’t operate in the US.
The ban on the military operating in the US precedes the AUMF.
You might as well ask where in the AUMF torture is forbidden.
Executive order 12333 and the Posse Comitatus Act.
Also, if, say, soullite were in Canada, or Mexico, or the UK. Fair game, then, yeah, even if you think that Posse Comitatus still applies?
Unless Canada or Mexico green-lighted the attack, which they wouldn’t, I’m pretty sure that would violate international law unless the U.S. was making the case that Canada or Mexico was an ally of al Qaeda in some capacity.
What, we’re talking about international law now? That’s a fun exercise in ball-moving.
Let’s talk about US law. Under your interpretation of the AUMF, does the POTUS have the authority under the AUMF to kill whoever he wants in any country he wants (I think that your argument extends to the US, but let’s leave that alone for now) as long as there is a determination somewhere (anonymous, secret, without a record, unaccountable) that that person is tied to AQ?
Yes or no?
Yeah, Brien, you can’t talk about one law that applies and then talk about another law that applies, when discussing the import of the first law. That’s ball-moving!
That’s a red herring, since the Constitution makes treaties to which we’re a signatory to legally binding in the U.S. So there’s no distinction between the two, if “international law” refers to treaties.
Or,more bluntly, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about and you’re just blowing smoke out of your ass like any wingnut screaming about how social security is un-Constitutional.
I am fascinated by the legality arguments here. It seems to boil down to this: “Yes, under the AUMF, POTUS can kill a US citizen or anyone else anywhere in the world*, based on some finding of a connection to AQ.”
But the problem that is being raised, and which the pro-legal advocates are not address is this: the implementation of this power is entirely secret and unaccountable, there’s no clear way to win this “military action”, and it goes on forever. And that is not rule of law. That’s rule of men under the guise of rule of law.
*Probably not the US, and as long as the relevant country says it’s OK for us to do or some other international law allows us to operate somehow or we can do it without anyone noticing, or as a political matter, if we don’t give a fuck about that country, since there’s not really any meaningful way to enforce international law against the US or its officials.
I’d just stop if I were you.
well Yemen didn’t green light the attacks so your now agreeing that the killing was wrong
I was under the impression that the Yemeni government was broadly okay with the drone attacks, since the territory is beyond the scope of their control.
Wow. You must’ve missed when Dick Cheney tried to cross that line in Buffalo, but since there was a small tenuous concern that it might be wrong, it wasn’t done.
I don’t think there will be those concerns in the future.
I’m not happy about this either, but I also recognize that during war processes like this occur. Including American citizens in this process sets a very disconcerting precedent.
No, not really. Not unless you assume that American citizens either can’t take the side of the US’s declared enemy in a war or should be exempt from having said war prosecuted against them if they do side against the U.S. Both of which would be very odd assumptions to make.
If we want to discuss making the process itself better to provide some level of oversight into these targeting decisions that’s fine, but the idea that an American citizen who sides with an entity the U.S. is waging military action against under the authority of Congress’ war-making powers simply cannot be targeted at all is just absurd.
Congress never declared war. They passed an enabling act so that the President could destroy any person or state entity that he or she consider a terrorist.
Six of one, half dozen of a another.
No, not really.
The Iraq War might not have happened had the Congress been required to declare war in March, rather than pass an AUMF in September.
It’s the same basic problem we face with every target or prisoner in the so-called war on terror–do we treat them as combatants, or as criminals? If they are combatants on the battlefield we can blow them up unless they surrender or are somehow hors de combat–citizenship doesn’t enter into it; nor does criminal procedure. If they are not combtants (or outside a battlefield), a whole different set of rules apply. This guy looked like a combatant on the battlefield to me, and it’s not a particularly hard question–the notion of sending a police officer with a warrant to arrest this guy is silly
“looked like” and “to me” are doing an awful lot of work here. Sort of like “suspected” and “believed” are doing an awful lot of work in the more official leaked case against him.
Look, I think we should just accept that if the arguments of the “this was legal” advocates are correct, the POTUS (of whatever party) has the effective authority to kill whoever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants as long as he can say the magic words “Al Qaeda” (and really, just “terrorist” will do). I don’t think they’re right, but I do think that the legal hairsplitting on their part is just silly given the real-world implementation of the AUMF.
Whether that killing is politically prudent or not is a different question. But that is the essence of the question.
“Look, I think we should just accept that if the arguments of the “this was legal” advocates are correct, the POTUS (of whatever party) has the effective authority to kill whoever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants as long as he can say the magic words “Al Qaeda” (and really, just “terrorist” will do).”
Well that’s clearly wrong, but again, what does that have to do with anything? The implications of someone being right have absolutely no bearing on whether they are, in fact, right.
Yeah. If it walks like a duck… or if it talks like al-queda, lives with al-queda and works for al-queda, it’s fucking al-queda. Is that so hard to understand? When one declares the U.S. the enemy and works with a declared enemy of the U.S., then one has essentially expatriated oneself. So what if one didn’t fill out the proper forms to do so.
And incinerating someone from a flying killer robot is so much easier than arresting them.
Would it be different if they were incinerated by a pilot in a manned aircraft? What’s your point? Once it’s declared a military target, it’s a military target. What difference does it make if an American citizen happens to be working with the other legally legitimized targets?
Personally, I hate our reliance on bombing, strafing, missiles, etc; and I say that as a veteran of the Air Force. I really hate it with a red-hot passion and will never be able to watch the sensational night bombing of Baghdad without bursting into wracking sobs. It shames me more than anything I’ve ever seen this country do. Our preventive invasion based on lies and the utter destruction of a nation is far more worrisome to me than this secret chamber (I don’t say that to dismiss the dangers of such a thing, just to point out that we’ve already done much worse and it’s not being acknowledged). We openly and systematically destroyed a nation that posed no threat to us at all.
I’m always disappointed with our foreign policy, which leads me to believe that I am far to the left of most Americans when it comes to foreign policy and am in an anti-war (but not entirely pacifist) minority.
I think what’s important for you to realize here is that all of that was LEGAL. So no worries, it’s all cool.
No, the Iraq war violated international law.
Agreed. The fact that the UN Security Council failed to stand up to the 800 pound gorilla doesn’t really change the fact that the “reasons” we invaded were all patently false, and that even if they had been true it was a “preventive” attack, i.e a Preventive Attack. The term “Preemptive” means that an attack is imminent or taking place, not that you can imagine being attacked at some time in the future. This is one of those cases in which citing Hitler is appropriate, though Preventive War had not yet been internationally recognized as the ultimate crime against peace when he waged it.
I’m really sick of this argument, and I’m not typing the same stuff over and over.
However, it is Greenwald and the outraged making a legal argument. The argument sucks, humans have rights that the American government is supposed to respect and it has absolutely nothing to do with their citizenship. No one here being outraged would argue with that in any other context.
Hunting terrorists who hide out in no man’s land with drones is a policy that I find problematic. I’m unsure if it’s worth the hassle or blowback. Someone who is more sure of the position that this idea is poor, I wouldn’t have an argument with.
The idea that this whole policy has anything to do with what passport the human being targeted for taking a dirt nap has is fucking stupid. It’s legally fucked, morally fucked, just counterproductive and stupid.
Well, I’ve finally realized why Obama chose not to prosecute previous administration officials for war crimes.
None of the comments above seemed too concerned that this assassination committee is unelected and unaccountable. They are self-consciously engaged in an illegal act or else they wouldn’t be acting like a bunch of mobsters everytime they meet.
And the kicker is they say they do this to ‘protect’ the President. All that stuff in Suskind’s book is looking a lot more credible. Given unelected committees kill authority shackles any elected government into a fearful fight if they ever attempt to constrain the killers.
“They are self-consciously engaged in an illegal act or else they wouldn’t be acting like a bunch of mobsters everytime they meet.”
Well when you employ logic like that, who can help but agree with you?
When you drop throwaway lines like that, who can help but take you seriously.
Now that is not the problem. Everything happening in the executive branch is the responsibility of the president.
I cannot recall.
Three words any President will use in any inquiry dealing with anything in the Executive. In a legal sense it matters if Obama is at these meetings when assigning culpability.
Oh, come on. You can’t think of any reason why people reviewing secret intelligence with an eye towards authorizing covert actions and otherwise surprising the enemy would act in secret, except for a conscious awareness of criminality?
As somebody who supports democracy, these sorts of cabals aren’t acceptable.
The secrecy exists to protect them from the consequences of their actions. Why else would they do it in secret?
I think the problem is the AUMF. That it is not a declaration of war doesn’t matter. falsa demonstratio non nocet. As long it is substantively a declaration of war.
But any law has to somewhat definitive. Who means anything means nothing and the enemy or enemies in the AUMF are so vague that I am not sure that it is still legal. In a conventional declaration of war the enemy is clear. But here the definition who is the enemy according to the AUMF is more or less given over to the executive.
Is that still legal? Can congress give it’s powers away in that way?
There is also the question of international law. If Yemen is not at war with the united states, isn’t the killing a act of war against Yemen?
No, because the claimant in international court would have to be the much beloved government of Yemen, which according to Obama helped and supported the killing.
Not that Saleh has his own problems with killing people.
Think about the Clean Air Act: Congress gives its powers away to the EPA all the time.
Every line in the Federal regulatory code written by an executive agency is an example of the executive making decisions using powers given to them by Congress.
Only if Yemen opposes it.
Can congress give it’s powers away in that way?
Am I going to have to break out the “can vs. may” lecture? Because I will.
Greenwald is on fire with that post. I bow in his general direction. “Process” does not describe what is mentioned in the Greenwald post.
The Star Chamber couldn’t give the Death Penalty.
I hadn’t intended to read the entire thread, but I was simply amazed. Like watching a train wreck. Although I guess I shouldn’t have been surprise at the insistance by Joe and Brien and some others that this killing, is just ok, and legal even though they are only relying on the say so of the president’s people.
I guess the phrase “banality of evil” comes to mind. And who could be more banal and evil then those who are willing to argue legal justifications for the targeted killing of a citizen who apparently was only exercising his supposed right to free speech.
To be fair, I think Brien and joe actually have a pretty strong argument that this was legal. I’m not sure I agree with it, but the argument isn’t nutty.
Which just opens up an entirely new can of worms. Things can be legal and still awful.
Banality of evil? Try “collateral damage” if you want to hear some banality of evil. Dismembered corpses of children is some seriously ugly crap, and there’s no doubt that’s legal.
This is where I jump off the Greenwald train. The issue here isn’t “legality” or “due process.” I cannot imagine an America where the attack on Al Awaki would not have been authorized, regardless of what procedural requirements were on the tracks. It’s like I’m living in a world where every liberal has forgotten the runaway train that led us to Iraq.
Whether or not you can imagine an America where this kind of attack would not have been authorized, I still do not see the justification of killing the guy because of what he said.
The kind of America that didn’t exist until a few years ago was one that bragged about torture and indefinate detention and arbitrary assisinations. If we did indeed do it it was something to be embarrassed about and hide and deny. Now we are proud.