Eric Holder explains the use of drones [update]

[LapsedPacifist]

This has come up a couple of times recently, here's the administrations defense of the use of drones:

Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.

It's a 5000 word speech, so I have not quoted the entirety of it.

Here's Gleen Greenwald's column/rebuttal.

I find it much easier to agree with Gleen Greenwald than the administration about this.

But the crux of Holder’s argument as set forth in yesterday’s speech is this:

"Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."

When Obama officials (like Bush officials before them) refer to someone “who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces,” what they mean is this: someone the President has accused and then decreed in secret to be a Terrorist without ever proving it with evidence. The “process” used by the Obama administration to target Americans for execution-by-CIA is, as reported last October by Reuters, as follows:

"American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions . . . There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council . . . Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate."

As Leon Panetta recently confirmed, the President makes the ultimate decision as to whether the American will be killed: “[The] President of the United States obviously reviews these cases, reviews the legal justification, and in the end says, go or no go.”

So that is the “process” which Eric Holder yesterday argued constitutes “due process” as required by the Fifth Amendment before the government can deprive of someone of their life: the President and his underlings are your accuser, your judge, your jury and your executioner all wrapped up in one, acting in total secrecy and without your even knowing that he’s accused you and sentenced you to death, and you have no opportunity even to know about, let alone confront and address, his accusations; is that not enough due process for you?

[Mr Bean]

Glenn covers it but Holder use almost direct Orwellian quotes to explain why we are not using drones assassinate people because assassinations are illegal and we can't break the law.

Summation of Holder's position
1. The President can declare anyone a terrorist by decree
2. The President can have any terrorist killed
3. Thus the President can order anyone killed anywhere by decree without involving the courts and he won't do it inside the United States because he promises not to... but make no mistake he could if he wanted to.

[Thanas]

The Administration's defence would serve very well as a blueprint for any authoritarian state to allow any abuse they want. Glad to see Obama is globalizing.

Unfortunately nothing will come of it. Americans don't care enough to stop voting for these policies or the people enacting them, nor is there any kind of public protest.

[Thanas]

Oh, and Colbert is pretty good on this:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... due-or-die

[Thanas]

Oh, and this:

Throughout the Bush years, then-Sen. Obama often spoke out so very eloquently about the Vital Importance of Due Process even for accused Terrorists. As but one example, he stood up on the Senate floor and denounced Bush’s Guantanamo detentions on the ground that a “perfectly innocent individual could be held and could not rebut the Government’s case and has no way of proving his innocence.” He spoke of “the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence.” He mocked the right-wing claim “that judicial inquiry is an antique, trivial and dispensable luxury.” He acknowledged that the Government will unavoidably sometimes make mistakes in accusing innocent people of being Terrorists, but then provided the obvious solution: “what is avoidable is refusing to ever allow our legal system to correct these mistakes.” How moving is all that? What a stirring tribute to the urgency of allowing accused Terrorists a day in court before punishing them.

Well, apparently it does not matter to him at all as long as he is the one doing the killing, right?

[TheHammer]

I'd love to see the president arrested for murder. I betcha those legal memos would come out then.

It is amazing to me that legal justifications can be considered secret. The law is public. You believe those actions were legal. So, talk about it in public.

As far as it being Public, I would agree there should be some sort of notice. Generally speaking, the "secret" process you speak of isn't so secret anymore. Based on the leaks, it seems the key criteria for someone getting on these lists are that they are 1) considered extremely dangerous, and 2) their capture is not considered to be feasible under the circumstances. Since there is no mechanism for trial absentia under U.S. law, I'd propose a list such as the FBI's most wanted list, where in a U.S. citizen operating from foreign soil is designated as a dangerous terrorist. They are then given the option of surrendering to U.S. custody for prosecution. Failing that, they would be subject to death by drone or any other means.

Would that satisfy?

[Mr Bean]

As far as it being Public, I would agree there should be some sort of notice. Generally speaking, the "secret" process you speak of isn't so secret anymore. Based on the leaks, it seems the key criteria for someone getting on these lists are that they are 1) considered extremely dangerous, and 2) their capture is not considered to be feasible under the circumstances. Since there is no mechanism for trial absentia under U.S. law, I'd propose a list such as the FBI's most wanted list, where in a U.S. citizen operating from foreign soil is designated as a dangerous terrorist. They are then given the option of surrendering to U.S. custody for prosecution. Failing that, they would be subject to death by drone or any other means.

Would that satisfy?

No it would not because the person who get's to decide who's on the list is the executive branch.
Keep in mind how low the barrier is in the courts. I could for example charge you of being best friends with al-Awlaki and thus worthy of death and if I'm intelligent I can find a judge somewhere in Maryland/DC or Virgina willing to accept those charges. Not have a trial, but accept the fact that those charges are potentially valid and an arrest warrant should be issued.

It's a very low bar to pass, and in the case of evidence via state secrets there are judges out there who have the clearance to read someone in on that. In al-Awlaki's case they did not even bother to do that, he was named a dangerous terrorist, he was targeted and killed. The FBI's most wanted list all have had warrants issued for questioning or in connect to the crime they are charged with committing.

[Thanas]

Also if you appeal to a wanted criminal to turn himself in and he refuses, you do not automatically get permission to kill him unless he resists capture attempts with force. That is current US law.

[TheHammer]

As far as it being Public, I would agree there should be some sort of notice. Generally speaking, the "secret" process you speak of isn't so secret anymore. Based on the leaks, it seems the key criteria for someone getting on these lists are that they are 1) considered extremely dangerous, and 2) their capture is not considered to be feasible under the circumstances. Since there is no mechanism for trial absentia under U.S. law, I'd propose a list such as the FBI's most wanted list, where in a U.S. citizen operating from foreign soil is designated as a dangerous terrorist. They are then given the option of surrendering to U.S. custody for prosecution. Failing that, they would be subject to death by drone or any other means.

Would that satisfy?

No it would not because the person who get's to decide who's on the list is the executive branch.
Keep in mind how low the barrier is in the courts. I could for example charge you of being best friends with al-Awlaki and thus worthy of death and if I'm intelligent I can find a judge somewhere in Maryland/DC or Virgina willing to accept those charges. Not have a trial, but accept the fact that those charges are potentially valid and an arrest warrant should be issued.

It's a very low bar to pass, and in the case of evidence via state secrets there are judges out there who have the clearance to read someone in on that. In al-Awlaki's case they did not even bother to do that, he was named a dangerous terrorist, he was targeted and killed. The FBI's most wanted list all have had warrants issued for questioning or in connect to the crime they are charged with committing.

I think the problem is there is a gap in the law when the person in question is overseas. It is something congress should address, but probably won't. In lieu of that, you have to come up with some sort of system.

And quite frankly, what seems like a better system? The President and numerous appointed government officials reviewing the status of a person and comming to a consensus on what his designation should be? Or a federal judge, who was in all likliehood was also appointed by a President (current or former), deciding things all by himself. As long as there is criteria in place, and process that is gone through that makes logical sense I'm probably more comfortable with the former.

Also if you appeal to a wanted criminal to turn himself in and he refuses, you do not automatically get permission to kill him unless he resists capture attempts with force. That is current US law.

Current US law is deficient when it comes to situations such as the Awlaki case. As noted, it is something that should be addressed via legislature but probably isn't going to be. If it is addressed, they are likely to simply rubber stamp the process that is already being followed. In the interim, I don't think you can throw up your hands and simply let people such as Awlaki roam free because the law hasn't been developed to deal with them.

TheHammer:
I mean the legal argument Holder is referring to here; the memo mentioned in the article. It is like DR5 on this board: if you say "X is legal" and someone says "prove it", well, fucking prove it, don't call it a secret, repeat your claim with a "trust me", ignore the request, or whatever.

I can understand if they wanted to edit out battle plans or other specific details that might compromise an operation. But, the legal argument itself ought to be no secret. The law and court decisons are all public knowledge, so making an argument with citations to it has no reason legitimate to keep that confidential.

I know this is becoming a common refrain, but currently the legal system isn't set up to handle situations like this. It would be nice of Congress created a mechanism that was agile enough to handle emerging situations, but also something that would be deemed consistent with due process. I could very well envision a system much like the one currently being used by the executive, with perhaps a congressional oversight committee that could review things after the fact and make sure no abuses of the power were taking place.

[Akhlut]

There are such things as extradition treaties.

We could also have a trial in absentia after trying to get into contact with the accused and give the defendant a competent attorney and then abide by the results of the trial.

Or perhaps in order for a citizen to be declared a terrorist, the case should be reviewed by a panel of judges who must come to unanimous consensus that the accused is, in fact, a terrorist.

However, the matter is that for an American president to essentially unilaterally execute an American citizen without allowing for that citizen to defend himself (or even have someone represent him to defend himself) is terrifying. The entire American judicial system is predicated on the idea that, essentially, it is better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to be wrongly punished. Reversing that ideal on a legal basis (as opposed to bias issues) is disgusting and is as wrong as the laws of segregation, slavery, and Jim Crow. The only difference is these "legal" extrajudicial murders will never be as widespread as chattel slavery or sundown towns.

[TheHammer]

There are such things as extradition treaties.

The problem is you can't extradite someone who isn't in custody. The whole point is that these are dangerous men whose capture is not feasible.

We could also have a trial in absentia after trying to get into contact with the accused and give the defendant a competent attorney and then abide by the results of the trial.

Would require a change in U.S. law. Besides the fact that while you're doing this kangaroo trial, the "accused" is continuing his terrorist activities. When you have someone in custody you can afford to be judicious. When they are actively causing harm you need to be able to react much faster.

Or perhaps in order for a citizen to be declared a terrorist, the case should be reviewed by a panel of judges who must come to unanimous consensus that the accused is, in fact, a terrorist.

A panel of Federal judges... who would be appointed by the President...

Don't get me wrong, I think that might be a good idea but its not radically different from the process that is already followed. It would be agile enough to deal with active threats, and give the oversight.

We'd finally get that "Death Panel" Sarah Palin told us was coming

However, the matter is that for an American president to essentially unilaterally execute an American citizen without allowing for that citizen to defend himself (or even have someone represent him to defend himself) is terrifying. The entire American judicial system is predicated on the idea that, essentially, it is better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to be wrongly punished. Reversing that ideal on a legal basis (as opposed to bias issues) is disgusting and is as wrong as the laws of segregation, slavery, and Jim Crow. The only difference is these "legal" extrajudicial murders will never be as widespread as chattel slavery or sundown towns.

Its not as simple as you are making it out to be. For anyone to be put on this list, you bet your ass the administration is going to be sure they belong there. Its going to be guys like Awlaki not the ones that are "questionable". No one in that administration would want to make a mistake and target a citizen who didn't deserve it because there would be an epic shit storm to follow. And they know that.

[Grumman]

Its not as simple as you are making it out to be. For anyone to be put on this list, you bet your ass the administration is going to be sure they belong there. Its going to be guys like Awlaki not the ones that are "questionable". No one in that administration would want to make a mistake and target a citizen who didn't deserve it because there would be an epic shit storm to follow. And they know that.

Actually it's you who is betting your ass on this assumption. You are the one who thinks that the President and his underlings should be able to kill whoever they want, for whatever reason they want, and pass it off as the targeted killing of a known terrorist based on super-secret intelligence that they don't have to share with anybody.

[Rahvin]

The problem is you can't extradite someone who isn't in custody. The whole point is that these are dangerous men whose capture is not feasible.

Allegedly dangerous men. That's kind of the point. I can allege that you are a "dangerous man." Is that sufficient due process to have you killed?

We have individuals in the US who are "dangerous men," gang leaders and drug lords and even the occasional serial killer or domestic terrorist. For some reason we allow these individuals the basic right to appear in court to defend themselves against the accusation that they are in fact as guilty as the government believes them to be...even if their capture is unfeasible. In fact, the biggest reason we don;t just round up all of the alleged drug lords and gang leaders and so on is because we will need enough evidence to present to a judge and eventually a jury to secure an arrest warrant and then a conviction in a court of law.

These individuals are unquestionably dangerous.

Why then do the rules change when we talk about certain terrorists? Why did we need to gather evidence, seek an arrest, and go through a trial for Timothy McVeigh to prove the allegations against him in a court of law, but we don't need to do any of that for another American citizen plotting a similar attack? Is it because they're Muslim? Brown? Happen to be located in a conveniently foreign country at the time? All of the above?

If "due process" doesn't mean "Judicial process" then I don't know the purpose for our entire criminal justice system. If "due process" doesn't mean "we need to use a standard process to prove specific criminal allegations against an individual to the satisfaction of a jury of the peers of the accused," then we might as well just start assuming guilt before innocence and throw out trials. That's exactly what these drone attacks and Holder's reasoning entail - the assumption of guilt by the state without any due process, and the carrying out of a sentence without judicial review or oversight of any kind at all.

If I get accused of being a murderer tomorrow, I get arrested and can defend myself in a trial.

If I get labelled by the administration as a terrorist tomorrow (and I just so happen to go overseas), I and whoever happens to be around me at the time might be greeted by a Hellfire missile to the face instead of a cop with an arrest warrant.

That's pretty fucked up. I'd rather let potential terrorists go on breathing free than shit on civil liberties and the criminal justice system to this degree.

[Akhlut]

However, the matter is that for an American president to essentially unilaterally execute an American citizen without allowing for that citizen to defend himself (or even have someone represent him to defend himself) is terrifying. The entire American judicial system is predicated on the idea that, essentially, it is better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to be wrongly punished. Reversing that ideal on a legal basis (as opposed to bias issues) is disgusting and is as wrong as the laws of segregation, slavery, and Jim Crow. The only difference is these "legal" extrajudicial murders will never be as widespread as chattel slavery or sundown towns.

Its not as simple as you are making it out to be. For anyone to be put on this list, you bet your ass the administration is going to be sure they belong there. Its going to be guys like Awlaki not the ones that are "questionable". No one in that administration would want to make a mistake and target a citizen who didn't deserve it because there would be an epic shit storm to follow. And they know that.

Like the epic shitstorm that followed Colin Powell when he provided false evidence for the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent death of several thousand US troops and several tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians?

Oh wait...

As for everything above that: so, your basic excuse for not wanting to apply due process to people legally entitled to it boils down to "it's too hard!"?

[TheHammer]

Its not as simple as you are making it out to be. For anyone to be put on this list, you bet your ass the administration is going to be sure they belong there. Its going to be guys like Awlaki not the ones that are "questionable". No one in that administration would want to make a mistake and target a citizen who didn't deserve it because there would be an epic shit storm to follow. And they know that.

Actually it's you who is betting your ass on this assumption. You are the one who thinks that the President and his underlings should be able to kill whoever they want, for whatever reason they want, and pass it off as the targeted killing of a known terrorist based on super-secret intelligence that they don't have to share with anybody.

Please quote where I said they should be able to "kill whoever they want". Go back and re-read what I posted.

The problem is you can't extradite someone who isn't in custody. The whole point is that these are dangerous men whose capture is not feasible.

Allegedly dangerous men. That's kind of the point. I can allege that you are a "dangerous man." Is that sufficient due process to have you killed?

We have individuals in the US who are "dangerous men," gang leaders and drug lords and even the occasional serial killer or domestic terrorist. For some reason we allow these individuals the basic right to appear in court to defend themselves against the accusation that they are in fact as guilty as the government believes them to be...even if their capture is unfeasible. In fact, the biggest reason we don;t just round up all of the alleged drug lords and gang leaders and so on is because we will need enough evidence to present to a judge and eventually a jury to secure an arrest warrant and then a conviction in a court of law.

These individuals are unquestionably dangerous.

Yes those individuals are dangerous. However, the criteria for targeting someone isn't simply that they are dangerous. It is that they are dangerous and due to circumstances their capture is not considered viable. When those drug lords and gang leaders hole up some place with weapons they are many times killed without trial.

And really, I don't think the word "dangerous" is strong enough now that I think about it. Danger merely implies a potential threat. But when you're talking about men such as Awlaki they are an active threat.

Why then do the rules change when we talk about certain terrorists? Why did we need to gather evidence, seek an arrest, and go through a trial for Timothy McVeigh to prove the allegations against him in a court of law, but we don't need to do any of that for another American citizen plotting a similar attack? Is it because they're Muslim? Brown? Happen to be located in a conveniently foreign country at the time? All of the above?

You were close: Happen to be located in a conveniently conducting terrorist operations from a foreign country at the time.

McVeigh was captured and thus could be afforded the time to stand trial. He was no longer an active threat.

If "due process" doesn't mean "Judicial process" then I don't know the purpose for our entire criminal justice system. If "due process" doesn't mean "we need to use a standard process to prove specific criminal allegations against an individual to the satisfaction of a jury of the peers of the accused," then we might as well just start assuming guilt before innocence and throw out trials. That's exactly what these drone attacks and Holder's reasoning entail - the assumption of guilt by the state without any due process, and the carrying out of a sentence without judicial review or oversight of any kind at all.

If I get accused of being a murderer tomorrow, I get arrested and can defend myself in a trial.

Yes, you can get arrested, thus you are not an active threat. If you were to flee to a foreign nation and then proceed to plot and carry out attacks against more people then it becomes a different story.

If I get labelled by the administration as a terrorist tomorrow (and I just so happen to go overseas), I and whoever happens to be around me at the time might be greeted by a Hellfire missile to the face instead of a cop with an arrest warrant.

That's pretty fucked up. I'd rather let potential terrorists go on breathing free than shit on civil liberties and the criminal justice system to this degree.

Again, I know the fear is that this sort of thing would be abused, however there is no evidence of it having been done so. To my knowledge, the only American ever to appear on such a list is Awlaki. And its not as though it was even a question as to whether or not he belonged on it.

However, the matter is that for an American president to essentially unilaterally execute an American citizen without allowing for that citizen to defend himself (or even have someone represent him to defend himself) is terrifying. The entire American judicial system is predicated on the idea that, essentially, it is better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to be wrongly punished. Reversing that ideal on a legal basis (as opposed to bias issues) is disgusting and is as wrong as the laws of segregation, slavery, and Jim Crow. The only difference is these "legal" extrajudicial murders will never be as widespread as chattel slavery or sundown towns.

Its not as simple as you are making it out to be. For anyone to be put on this list, you bet your ass the administration is going to be sure they belong there. Its going to be guys like Awlaki not the ones that are "questionable". No one in that administration would want to make a mistake and target a citizen who didn't deserve it because there would be an epic shit storm to follow. And they know that.

Like the epic shitstorm that followed Colin Powell when he provided false evidence for the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent death of several thousand US troops and several tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians?

Oh wait...

As for everything above that: so, your basic excuse for not wanting to apply due process to people legally entitled to it boils down to "it's too hard!"?

I never said anything about not applying "due process". What I'm saying is the traditional court system is incapable of effectively dealing with situations such as terrorists operating from foreign soil. Thus there should be a streamlined process for doing so. It would be my preference for congress to come up with a workable system, but in the interim I don't have a problem with the system the Executive branch has set up for itself.

You all seem to act as though this is a massive amount of POWER to give to the President as though it would go to his head and he'd start willy nilly adding people who cut him off in traffic, or talked badly about him on T.V. However, as commander-n-chief he already has the power and has used it to kill thousands any time he wants to. But in those cases, he knows he will have to justify his actions to the American People. None of that would change.

[Rahvin]

Yes those individuals are dangerous. However, the criteria for targeting someone isn't simply that they are dangerous. It is that they are dangerous and due to circumstances their capture is not considered viable. When those drug lords and gang leaders hole up some place with weapons they are many times killed without trial.

In the course of attempting to arrest them, not with a sanctioned assassination. The two are significantly different.

You were close: Happen to be located in a conveniently conducting terrorist operations from a foreign country at the time.

McVeigh was captured and thus could be afforded the time to stand trial. He was no longer an active threat.

Allegedly. Which, again, is the entire problem. What if the government is wrong and the individuals targeted were not actually engaged in terrorism at all? That's the purpose of trials and due process - making sure the right person is brought to justice, and that the government operates within the bounds of civil liberties. How do we know they're conducting terrorism operations? Because the Administration says so? If we trust the government so much to tell us who is or is not guilty, why do we need trials in every other circumstance?

And McVeigh was a threat until he was arrested. It would have been reasonable to assume that he would be well armed and possibly have explosives in his residence to resist attempts to arrest him. It would have been reasonable to assume that it was "impractical" to attempt to arrest him. So why, then, did we bother gathering evidence for a trial and actually arrest him? The only difference seems to be whether the individual is conveniently in a foreign nation where we can "get away" with sending a drone to cause some collateral damage, because the populace in the US sure as fuck wouldn't be so apathetic if the Administration sent a drone to a residential neighborhood in Oklahoma City. That, or it's because these "terrorists" are all brown and Muslim, so it's okay to kill them on nothing but suspicion.

Yes, you can get arrested, thus you are not an active threat. If you were to flee to a foreign nation and then proceed to plot and carry out attacks against more people then it becomes a different story.

Why? What if I wasn't actually doing those things, the Administration simply accused me? How would you know if you killed a guilty or innocent person without a trial? How would you use a plea agreement to get me to give up my associates?

What the fuck negates the right of every accused criminal, regardless of how "dangerous" or what kind of fortress or national border they might hide behind, the inalienable right to face their accuser in a court of law and to not be punished outside of due process?

Again, I know the fear is that this sort of thing would be abused, however there is no evidence of it having been done so. To my knowledge, the only American ever to appear on such a list is Awlaki. And its not as though it was even a question as to whether or not he belonged on it.

You're a fucking idiot. We don't only worry about government power-grabs like this and the erosion of civil rights because of what a specific administration has used that power for. We worry about what the government could use the same reasoning for in the future.

And aside from that, why the fuck are you not morally outraged at a government policy of unilateral assassination? Even if we weren't talking about American citizens it would still be reprehensible! All it takes is for a sitting President to say that you or I are dangerous, and we can be on a drone operator's target list tomorrow! Why do you think it's okay to just kill people because some authority figure says "they're guilty, but the evidence is super secret, so just trust me?"

[Grumman]

Actually it's you who is betting your ass on this assumption. You are the one who thinks that the President and his underlings should be able to kill whoever they want, for whatever reason they want, and pass it off as the targeted killing of a known terrorist based on super-secret intelligence that they don't have to share with anybody.

Please quote where I said they should be able to "kill whoever they want". Go back and re-read what I posted.

You're right. I apologise, and will rephrase it thus:

You're the one who thinks the President and his underlings should be able to order the targeted killing of anyone he claims meets the definition, based on nothing more than his say-so that there is evidence. You do not think that this will allow the President and his underlings to kill whoever they want, for whatever reason they want, by laundering it through their terrorist-killing operation because you're a gullible idiot.

[Akhlut]

Its not as simple as you are making it out to be. For anyone to be put on this list, you bet your ass the administration is going to be sure they belong there. Its going to be guys like Awlaki not the ones that are "questionable". No one in that administration would want to make a mistake and target a citizen who didn't deserve it because there would be an epic shit storm to follow. And they know that.

Like the epic shitstorm that followed Colin Powell when he provided false evidence for the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent death of several thousand US troops and several tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians?

Oh wait...

As for everything above that: so, your basic excuse for not wanting to apply due process to people legally entitled to it boils down to "it's too hard!"?

I never said anything about not applying "due process".

Secret proceedings wherein the defendant has no opportunity to defend himself or at least have some manner of defense for him? Yep, that certainly sounds like due process to me.

At least in all the examples I provided allowed for someone to defend the accused before having a death order issued for them.

What I'm saying is the traditional court system is incapable of effectively dealing with situations such as terrorists operating from foreign soil.

The answer to that is not "secret procedures that allow for assassinations." It is "figure out a way to respect someone's civil rights while effectively preventing terrorist attacks."

Thus there should be a streamlined process for doing so.

You know, I'd much rather inhibit the government as much as possible on the issue of potential civil rights violation, not give them an express lane.

You all seem to act as though this is a massive amount of POWER to give to the President as though it would go to his head and he'd start willy nilly adding people who cut him off in traffic, or talked badly about him on T.V.

You do realize how often totalitarian/dictatorial regimes ratcheted up civil rights violations in piecemeal, right?

However, as commander-n-chief he already has the power and has used it to kill thousands any time he wants to. But in those cases, he knows he will have to justify his actions to the American People. None of that would change.

Like when President had to justify the Iraq war being predicated on lies?

[Simon_Jester]

...Something caught my eye...

You all seem to act as though this is a massive amount of POWER to give to the President as though it would go to his head and he'd start willy nilly adding people who cut him off in traffic, or talked badly about him on T.V.

You do realize how often totalitarian/dictatorial regimes ratcheted up civil rights violations in piecemeal, right?

So I looked back at what Hammer said...

I never said anything about not applying "due process". What I'm saying is the traditional court system is incapable of effectively dealing with situations such as terrorists operating from foreign soil. Thus there should be a streamlined process for doing so. It would be my preference for congress to come up with a workable system, but in the interim I don't have a problem with the system the Executive branch has set up for itself.

You all seem to act as though this is a massive amount of POWER to give to the President as though it would go to his head and he'd start willy nilly adding people who cut him off in traffic, or talked badly about him on T.V. However, as commander-n-chief he already has the power and has used it to kill thousands any time he wants to. But in those cases, he knows he will have to justify his actions to the American People. None of that would change.

Isn't "talked badly about him (or us) on TV" exactly what al-Awlaki did?

There's no evidence for him ever having done more than write encouraging letters to terrorists. Or rather, supposedly there is, but the evidence is a secret- we're not allowed to know what attacks al-Awlaki planned, but we can take it on faith that he did plan them. Because he's a Very Bad Man.

So how do we know hasn't Obama already crossed the line of "I assassinate you without trial because you say mean things about me/us/whatever?"

And it doesn't count to say "Obama assures us he has a good reason!" Because Obama would assure us he had a good reason whether he really had one or not. Politicians lie sometimes.

[TheHammer]

Yes those individuals are dangerous. However, the criteria for targeting someone isn't simply that they are dangerous. It is that they are dangerous and due to circumstances their capture is not considered viable. When those drug lords and gang leaders hole up some place with weapons they are many times killed without trial.

In the course of attempting to arrest them, not with a sanctioned assassination. The two are significantly different.

Your example isn't applicable because your gangsters and drug dealers are still located in a country that we control. Therefore we can surround them and by relatively assured that they are able to be captured. When you have a terrorist operating from foreign controlled soil you do not have that luxury.

You were close: Happen to be located in a conveniently conducting terrorist operations from a foreign country at the time.

McVeigh was captured and thus could be afforded the time to stand trial. He was no longer an active threat.

Allegedly. Which, again, is the entire problem. What if the government is wrong and the individuals targeted were not actually engaged in terrorism at all? That's the purpose of trials and due process - making sure the right person is brought to justice, and that the government operates within the bounds of civil liberties. How do we know they're conducting terrorism operations? Because the Administration says so? If we trust the government so much to tell us who is or is not guilty, why do we need trials in every other circumstance?

Which is why I've proposed you create a system of "notice" whereby you make it clear to a person that they are currently considered an "active threat". It is then their right to surrender within a reasonable time frame where they would then be forced to stand trial.

And McVeigh was a threat until he was arrested. It would have been reasonable to assume that he would be well armed and possibly have explosives in his residence to resist attempts to arrest him. It would have been reasonable to assume that it was "impractical" to attempt to arrest him. So why, then, did we bother gathering evidence for a trial and actually arrest him? The only difference seems to be whether the individual is conveniently in a foreign nation where we can "get away" with sending a drone to cause some collateral damage, because the populace in the US sure as fuck wouldn't be so apathetic if the Administration sent a drone to a residential neighborhood in Oklahoma City. That, or it's because these "terrorists" are all brown and Muslim, so it's okay to kill them on nothing but suspicion.

Its about feasbility of capture. If someone is on your land then capture is something you can reasonably attempt. You have various systems and manpower already in place to aid in that capture. When they are operating from land you don't have that capability.

Yes, you can get arrested, thus you are not an active threat. If you were to flee to a foreign nation and then proceed to plot and carry out attacks against more people then it becomes a different story.

Why? What if I wasn't actually doing those things, the Administration simply accused me? How would you know if you killed a guilty or innocent person without a trial? How would you use a plea agreement to get me to give up my associates?

What the fuck negates the right of every accused criminal, regardless of how "dangerous" or what kind of fortress or national border they might hide behind, the inalienable right to face their accuser in a court of law and to not be punished outside of due process?

They'd still have that right under what I'm proposing, so long as they surrendered to authorities. If they want to act like Awlaki and say "Come n get me if you dare! You'll never take me alive coppers!" then they can hardly claim they were denied due process when a predator drone blows them away.

Again, I know the fear is that this sort of thing would be abused, however there is no evidence of it having been done so. To my knowledge, the only American ever to appear on such a list is Awlaki. And its not as though it was even a question as to whether or not he belonged on it.

You're a fucking idiot. We don't only worry about government power-grabs like this and the erosion of civil rights because of what a specific administration has used that power for. We worry about what the government could use the same reasoning for in the future.

You're afraid of a slippery slope and I'm saying its not as slippery as you think it is.

And aside from that, why the fuck are you not morally outraged at a government policy of unilateral assassination? Even if we weren't talking about American citizens it would still be reprehensible! All it takes is for a sitting President to say that you or I are dangerous, and we can be on a drone operator's target list tomorrow! Why do you think it's okay to just kill people because some authority figure says "they're guilty, but the evidence is super secret, so just trust me?"

Because the President can already do this. Hell, a cop can already do this. To an extent we have no choice but to trust their judgement on many occaisions. The only counter balance to this is that there are repurcussions for when that judgement is overly flawed. Like I said, for those "assassination lists" I think there should be some notice given to the accused and that they are given the option to surrender for trial. And I think in the one instance it has been used, Awlaki clearly knew that he was on the list. But I don't think that they should be simply allowed to run free where we are essentially powerless to stop them.

You're right. I apologise, and will rephrase it thus:

You're the one who thinks the President and his underlings should be able to order the targeted killing of anyone he claims meets the definition, based on nothing more than his say-so that there is evidence. You do not think that this will allow the President and his underlings to kill whoever they want, for whatever reason they want, by laundering it through their terrorist-killing operation because you're a gullible idiot.

If we are going under the assumption that the President and or his underlings are "evil" and wantonly puts people on this list without just cause, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it anyway. If you are deemed undesirable by this hypothetical President you'll simply be listed as unfortunate "collateral damage". Or they will "find weapons on you" when they scrape up whats left of your body. Under the system I've proposed, it actually quite transparent because targets would be given the option to surrender.

Like the epic shitstorm that followed Colin Powell when he provided false evidence for the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent death of several thousand US troops and several tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians?

Oh wait...

As for everything above that: so, your basic excuse for not wanting to apply due process to people legally entitled to it boils down to "it's too hard!"?

I never said anything about not applying "due process".

Secret proceedings wherein the defendant has no opportunity to defend himself or at least have some manner of defense for him? Yep, that certainly sounds like due process to me.

At least in all the examples I provided allowed for someone to defend the accused before having a death order issued for them.

I already said that anyone on this list should be given the opportunity to surrender, at which point they'd be afforded all proper rights and court proceedings.

The answer to that is not "secret procedures that allow for assassinations." It is "figure out a way to respect someone's civil rights while effectively preventing terrorist attacks."

I believe the whole point of the Holder statements is to make the procedures less secret.

Thus there should be a streamlined process for doing so.

You know, I'd much rather inhibit the government as much as possible on the issue of potential civil rights violation, not give them an express lane.

Not saying there should be a rubber stamp, but it shouldn't be like our current court system where trials can drag on for years while the person deemed an "active threat" roams free.

You all seem to act as though this is a massive amount of POWER to give to the President as though it would go to his head and he'd start willy nilly adding people who cut him off in traffic, or talked badly about him on T.V.

You do realize how often totalitarian/dictatorial regimes ratcheted up civil rights violations in piecemeal, right?

This isn't a totalitarian/dictatorial regime.

However, as commander-n-chief he already has the power and has used it to kill thousands any time he wants to. But in those cases, he knows he will have to justify his actions to the American People. None of that would change.

Like when President had to justify the Iraq war being predicated on lies?

Exactly. In comparison to the power a President already has, this is very minor and probably the least of anyone's concerns.

[TheHammer]

...Something caught my eye...

You all seem to act as though this is a massive amount of POWER to give to the President as though it would go to his head and he'd start willy nilly adding people who cut him off in traffic, or talked badly about him on T.V.

You do realize how often totalitarian/dictatorial regimes ratcheted up civil rights violations in piecemeal, right?

So I looked back at what Hammer said...

I never said anything about not applying "due process". What I'm saying is the traditional court system is incapable of effectively dealing with situations such as terrorists operating from foreign soil. Thus there should be a streamlined process for doing so. It would be my preference for congress to come up with a workable system, but in the interim I don't have a problem with the system the Executive branch has set up for itself.

You all seem to act as though this is a massive amount of POWER to give to the President as though it would go to his head and he'd start willy nilly adding people who cut him off in traffic, or talked badly about him on T.V. However, as commander-n-chief he already has the power and has used it to kill thousands any time he wants to. But in those cases, he knows he will have to justify his actions to the American People. None of that would change.

Isn't "talked badly about him (or us) on TV" exactly what al-Awlaki did?

There's no evidence for him ever having done more than write encouraging letters to terrorists. Or rather, supposedly there is, but the evidence is a secret- we're not allowed to know what attacks al-Awlaki planned, but we can take it on faith that he did plan them. Because he's a Very Bad Man.

So how do we know hasn't Obama already crossed the line of "I assassinate you without trial because you say mean things about me/us/whatever?"

And it doesn't count to say "Obama assures us he has a good reason!" Because Obama would assure us he had a good reason whether he really had one or not. Politicians lie sometimes.

Awlaki did far more than "talk bad about us". He wasn't Sean Hannity in a turban. He actively recruited terrorists and was responsible for instilling in them the mentality needed to get them to carry out the attacks. He had already been convicted in a Yemni court, the country in which he was hiding, for "plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda". He was linked to the Fort Hood shooter and underwear bomber among others. Even if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, He knew that we was on the targeting list for some time and he had ample oppurtinity to surrender to U.S. authorities and "Defend himself in court". Instead he continued on with his "DEATH TO AMERICA!" rants up until the day he died.

See, what you don't seem to get is that I'm not looking to deny any of these people their "day in court". But they've got to be willing to face trial, not think that they are untouchable in some foreign land so Uncle Sam can just fuck off.

[Simon_Jester]

Awlaki did far more than "talk bad about us". He wasn't Sean Hannity in a turban. He actively recruited terrorists and was responsible for instilling in them the mentality needed to get them to carry out the attacks.

How much of this is alleged, and how much is proven? You've been awfully eager to dismiss reports by people like the Secretary of Defense in the past because no one linked you to them. So I want real evidence that al-Awlaki actually recruited anyone, as opposed to just writing encouraging letters.

Writing encouraging letters to criminals isn't a capital offense.

He had already been convicted in a Yemni court, the country in which he was hiding, for "plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda".

Then let the Yemenis arrest him. Or did the US government contract out to become the Yemenis' hangman while I wasn't looking?

He was linked to the Fort Hood shooter and underwear bomber among others.

By "linked to," do you mean "wrote encouraging letters?" Because writing an encouraging letter to a criminal, even a mass murderer, isn't normally a death sentence.

Also, linking him to the underwear bomber does not impress me. The underwear bomber is the best argument I can think of that we've pretty much won the damn war, because our enemies are reduced to setting their own genitals on fire in a futile attempt to cause us any real harm.

You can't look at the underwear bomber and not reflect that this is a very different order of threat than 9/11.

Even if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, He knew that we was on the targeting list for some time and he had ample oppurtinity to surrender to U.S. authorities and "Defend himself in court". Instead he continued on with his "DEATH TO AMERICA!" rants up until the day he died.

Yeah. He kept talking. So?

See, the problem I perceive here is that you want it to be okay to kill al-Awlaki for being a person you don't like. The exact definition of what he did that was criminal, what justified his death, is nebulous- you say he was 'linked to' murders and attempted murders, but not that he ordered those murders carried out (as bin Laden ordered the 9/11 attacks), or that he provided money and resources that made them possible. At most, he offered encouragement- does this mean Rush Limbaugh would be subject to the death penalty if someone 'inspired by' him decided to commit a terrorist attack?

Where do you, personally, draw the line between "inspiring" crimes and just talking bullshit?

Where do you think the administration draws the line?

What happens to the Constitution if we follow that line?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Also if you appeal to a wanted criminal to turn himself in and he refuses, you do not automatically get permission to kill him unless he resists capture attempts with force. That is current US law.

Or probable cause exists that the suspect poses a danger of serious injury or death to others if his/her escape would defeat the arrest.

Example - You have probable cause that the person you're chasing is a serial killer. He climbs a tall chain link fence. You attempt to climb it but you're boots prevent you from obtaining a foothold on the links. Deadly force would be justified.

Source This is TENNESSEE v. GARNER which is a significant case because it set the standard for the use of force by police officers in the US.

See the last paragraph under section B

It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have a problem with drones being used to take out people like Al-Awlaki but only when the information presented is transparent and has passed some sort of due process.

[Simon_Jester]

I think transparency is the real issue- because if there's transparency and a judicial due process, then we can actually go back and give the case the kind of scrutiny that Hammer has so much faith in. People can actually get in trouble for making bad decisions, instead of just stonewalling and demanding that we trust their judgment while lickspittles (like Holder on the large scale, and Hammer on the small) pretend nothing is wrong.

[TheHammer]

Awlaki did far more than "talk bad about us". He wasn't Sean Hannity in a turban. He actively recruited terrorists and was responsible for instilling in them the mentality needed to get them to carry out the attacks.

How much of this is alleged, and how much is proven? You've been awfully eager to dismiss reports by people like the Secretary of Defense in the past because no one linked you to them. So I want real evidence that al-Awlaki actually recruited anyone, as opposed to just writing encouraging letters.

Writing encouraging letters to criminals isn't a capital offense.

How many people did Hitler personally kill? How many did Bin Laden personally kill? When you are directing mean to take these actions, then you are responsible. As soon as you start with this "Well all he did was tell these men they'd have 70 virgins if they happened to die while killing infidels" then I have to presume you are being intentionally thick skulled.

He had already been convicted in a Yemni court, the country in which he was hiding, for "plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda".

Then let the Yemenis arrest him. Or did the US government contract out to become the Yemenis' hangman while I wasn't looking?

The Yemeni's didn't have the resources. He was ordered to be captured "dead or alive" by a Yemeni judge. However he was protected by a very large tribe. You would know that if you bothered to do any research.

He was linked to the Fort Hood shooter and underwear bomber among others.

By "linked to," do you mean "wrote encouraging letters?" Because writing an encouraging letter to a criminal, even a mass murderer, isn't normally a death sentence.

I love how you use soft language like "encouraging letters" as though they were simply harmless letters of praise. If by "encouraging letters" you mean he was encouraging hassan to kill as many Americans as he could, then yes that might be correct.

Also, linking him to the underwear bomber does not impress me. The underwear bomber is the best argument I can think of that we've pretty much won the damn war, because our enemies are reduced to setting their own genitals on fire in a futile attempt to cause us any real harm.

You can't look at the underwear bomber and not reflect that this is a very different order of threat than 9/11.

Yes he's a joke because his device failed to operate as designed. I suspect that at some point they did test and have success with such a device, before trying to actually use it to blow up a plane. Had it succeeded you'd be singing a very different fucking tune.

Even if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, He knew that we was on the targeting list for some time and he had ample oppurtinity to surrender to U.S. authorities and "Defend himself in court". Instead he continued on with his "DEATH TO AMERICA!" rants up until the day he died.

Yeah. He kept talking. So?

See, the problem I perceive here is that you want it to be okay to kill al-Awlaki for being a person you don't like. The exact definition of what he did that was criminal, what justified his death, is nebulous- you say he was 'linked to' murders and attempted murders, but not that he ordered those murders carried out (as bin Laden ordered the 9/11 attacks), or that he provided money and resources that made them possible. At most, he offered encouragement- does this mean Rush Limbaugh would be subject to the death penalty if someone 'inspired by' him decided to commit a terrorist attack?

Where do you, personally, draw the line between "inspiring" crimes and just talking bullshit?

Where do you think the administration draws the line?

What happens to the Constitution if we follow that line?

I think the administration draws the line at active threats. He did more than "inspire" crimes, he actively recruited for them. They didn't pick Awlaki's name out of a fucking hat. Do some research before you even bother bringing this shit to me.

Here is a link to get you started:
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/ ... 83679.html

“You have two choices: either hijra (emigration) or jihad (holy war),” Awlaki said in the video, which was posted on Islamist websites.

“I specifically invite the youth to either fight in the West or join their brothers in the fronts of jihad: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia.

“I invite them to join us in our new front, Yemen, the base from which the great jihad of the Arabian Peninsula will begin, the base from which the greatest army of Islam will march forth,” said Awlaki, a cleric of Yemeni descent, speaking in English..