Secret panel can put Americans on kill list

[Cutlass]

Been thinking on it. On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the most disturbing, this only rates a 6. Warrantless wire taps is a 10. Waterboarding prisoners is a 10.

 

[JollyRoger]

why dont you file suit against him on those grounds?

According to Supreme Court precedent, I do not have standing to do so. My remedy is pretty much limited to exercising my 1st Amendment right to criticize a diversion from the Constitution.

Do you consider each Supreme Court Justice a scholar of the Constitution? How about only two of them? If so, if the disagree on a Constitutional case, are they both right? Does one of them forfeit their right to be deemed a Constitutional scholar?

Been thinking on it. On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the most disturbing, this only rates a 6. Warrantless wire taps is a 10. Waterboarding prisoners is a 10.

This is death, so I do not see how it could be less severe than two items that don't kill you.

 

[metatron]

I believe the drone strikes (in general) can be justified, depending on what status one ascribes to Al Quaida activists.

Either they are fighters in a war, soldiers of some ill-defined extra-territorial nation. In that case the drone strikes are justifiable, but one would also have to apply all sorts of code of conduct in warfare to Al Qaida activists (such as the Geneva Conventions).

Or they are merely international criminals, which renders the drone strikes unjustifiable but also strips Al Quaida activists of many rights soldiers in a war would usually have.

Either way subjecting them to torture cannot be justified.

Questions: should President Obama be impeached for the extrajudicial execution of an American citizen? Should he face trial, like a regular peace officer, for killing someone who was not an immediate threat to himself or others? What should be done about the secret government panel that can order the extrajudicial executions of anyone?

As soon as Bush jr. is in detention in Den Haag i will bother to answer these questions...

 

[MobBoss]

From the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.

It would seem that it is congress that put the military onto Al Qaeda for destruction, thus making any of its members prone to military attack.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Of course, the obligatory "Meet the new boss," quote. It is, after all, only bad when the other party does it. There's some merit to the view both parties are two sides of the same organisation; they campaign with differences, but when actually in power have a lot in common.

I don't see a problem with a death panel for those who have openly declared war on the United States and its citizenry, as terrorists have. After all, you don't try enemy soldiers before you shoot them. I suppose the reasoning is terrorists are rarely fought in open combat, but given their often secluded nature, it is a tad cumbersome to try and arrest them.

Now, when death panels start going against non-violent citizens, I'll be raising eyebrows.

 

[squadbroken]

Suspected criminals who we have some evidence against him. If you think that those options are better, then tell me why they are.

Those options are better because they don't involve murdering suspected criminals with drone strikes.

I personally believe that the benefits of the drone strike is that it allows for elimination of armed assailants without risking allied soldiers in a firefight. Its con, of course, is that we would never know for sure if the assailants could have been talked down or captured non-lethally.

I take it then that you are fine with distributing Predator drones to police stations? After all, if someone is holed up in a house with a gun, it's much safer to just throw a few Hellfires through the living room window. Wouldn't want to risk the lives of police officers.

I think you misunderstand me. I do not think that this is a good thing, only that I understand why the government would be willing to do this and believe that they are still just. I would personally loathe sending in soldiers into a dangerous situation. Improvements to the system is possible, I expect, but what do you propose an improvement is?

I understand you quite well. It's the tired "well I don't like it but what can you do?" excuse used to justify all sorts of repulsive things throughout history.

And the improvement I propose is... stop murdering suspected criminals with drones. Boy, that was simple.

I am getting tired of criticizing some vague cloud in the air and shaking your fists without anything creative coming out of these debates.

Then I suggest you come up with an argument that doesn't boil down to "won't somebody PLEASE think of the chil... er, soldiers?!"

 

[JollyRoger]

It would seem that it is congress that put the military onto Al Qaeda for destruction, thus making any of its members prone to military attack.

Can you link me to the Declaration of War?

 

[Cutlass]

This is death, so I do not see how it could be less severe than two items that don't kill you.

Selected individuals versus all of us.

 

[amadeus]

We've all been waterboarded? I must have waterboard-induced amnesia. Perhaps I'll ask the FBI for my phone recordings, maybe I talked about it with someone afterwards.

 

[MobBoss]

Folks, this is a non-issue. When congress voted and passed authorization for the President to hunt down Al Qaeda, this gave him permission to kill members of that group.

Does anyone doubt this guy ran off to Yemen to be a leader in Al Qaeda? That he was in an Al Qaeda motorcade when he was targeted and killed as a leader of Al Qaeda?

If not, then there isnt really anything to discuss. Our nation can have foreign as well as domestic enemies - this guy was an example of a domestic enemy, and chose Al Qaeda over his country of birth.

Military target, military op against a member of Al Qaeda. Not an assassination.

 

[Cutlass]

We've all been waterboarded? I must have waterboard-induced amnesia. Perhaps I'll ask the FBI for my phone recordings, maybe I talked about it with someone afterwards.

We are at far more risk from it.

 

[katipunero]

obama has a couple of aces up his sleeve though.

first, he has access to confidential national security information which he cannot divulge to the public until after the threat of al-Qaeda is finally neutralized. by the time these documents are made public for legal scrutiny, he might not be the sitting president anymore and so cannot be impeached.

second, being the commander in chief of the military at a time of "war" and belligerence, he is given wider discretion to act and decide on "imperfect" and "incomplete" intelligence in order to avoid or prevent greater harm and evil. the risk of another terror attack is a legitimate concern that sort of outweighs the concern regarding the risk of possibly violating an individual's rights.

third, obama's term is about to end so impeachment is a wasteful exercise in futility.

 

[MobBoss]

Can you link me to the Declaration of War?

Not required, and many of our wars historically have been fought without a declaration of war.

But congress did vote and include Al Qaeda as part of the resolution for conflict after 9/11.

 

[JollyRoger]

Selected individuals versus all of us.

Waterboarding and warrantless wiretaps are also targeted at selected individuals.

Folks, this is a non-issue. When congress voted and passed authorization for the President to hunt down Al Qaeda, this gave him permission to kill members of that group.

Can you point me to the clause in the Constitution that allows Coongress to override 5th Amendment due process rights in such a way?

 

[MobBoss]

Can you point me to the clause in the Constitution that allows Coongress to override 5th Amendment due process rights in such a way?

Article 8, section 8, clause 11 I think. I guess one could say the congressional vote to make Al Qaeda targets after 9/11 was an 'act of reprisal'.

But like I said, i'm not a congressional expert. The measure to make Al Qaeda a military target was passed. If someone wants to challenge it, I'm sure they can opt to do so. Be my guest.

 

[katipunero]

According to Supreme Court precedent, I do not have standing to do so. My remedy is pretty much limited to exercising my 1st Amendment right to criticize a diversion from the Constitution.

Do you consider each Supreme Court Justice a scholar of the Constitution? How about only two of them? If so, if the disagree on a Constitutional case, are they both right? Does one of them forfeit their right to be deemed a Constitutional scholar?


This is death, so I do not see how it could be less severe than two items that don't kill you.

Do you need standing to have the articles of impeachment endorsed by congress for the president to be tried? hmmm.

 

[uppi]

According to Supreme Court precedent, I do not have standing to do so.

So who would have standing? Probably the guy being killed would have, but being dead sort of restricts his ability to sue. Could an American government get away with infringing on the rights of American citizens by killing everyone who would have standing to sue?

 

[katipunero]

So who would have standing? Probably the guy being killed would have, but being dead sort of restricts his ability to sue. Could an American government get away with infringing on the rights of American citizens by killing everyone who would have standing to sue?

if a government is willing to exterminate any sort of dissent from its citizenry to avoid liability, you have a bigger problem to worry about than standing before a court of law.

anyway, the impeachment process originates from congress. citizens don't need standing to get the ball rollin'. an interested person would just have to convince a number of house representatives to draft and endorse the articles of impeachment which is then forwarded to the senate for trial. the senate then acts as a judicial body to try the president according to the charges contained in the articles of impeachment.

 

[JollyRoger]

Article 8, section 8, clause 11 I think. I guess one could say the congressional vote to make Al Qaeda targets after 9/11 was an 'act of reprisal'.

I'm assuming you meant Article I: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

LETTER OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL, War. A commission granted by the government to a private individual, to take the property of a foreign state, or of the citizens or subjects of such state, as a reparation for an injury committed by such state, its citizens or subjects.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Letter+of+marque+and+reprisal

One could say that, but they would, in my opinion, be wrong, especially if you take Justice Scalia's stated approach to the Consitution (publically understood meaning of a word or phrase at the time of the Framing).

So who would have standing? Probably the guy being killed would have, but being dead sort of restricts his ability to sue. Could an American government get away with infringing on the rights of American citizens by killing everyone who would have standing to sue?

Representatives of his estate would likely have standing as would perhaps his spouse and/or parents and children. But that would be merely for wrongful death damages and would be an uphill climb on the merits. Impeachment and conviction via Congress or an election loss are the remedies available to everyone else.

 

[Seon]

I take it then that you are fine with distributing Predator drones to police stations? After all, if someone is holed up in a house with a gun, it's much safer to just throw a few Hellfires through the living room window. Wouldn't want to risk the lives of police officers.

That is a fair point which I do not have a ready answer for except that we have SWAT team stationed everywhere who are trained just for the purpose of dealing with such people.

Imperfect logic, I admit.

I understand you quite well. It's the tired "well I don't like it but what can you do?" excuse used to justify all sorts of repulsive things throughout history.

Repulsive to you, but seen as necessary by others. China restricts people to remain in certain areas and force them to carry passes, kind of like the apartheid in South Africa. Yet if those practices were gone, then quite a lot of people in Chinese farmlands would want to come to the cities, which are already quite overcrowded. Its infrastructure would not be able to sustain such a large population.

It's an authoritarian action which is repulsive, but if it wasn't there, China could collapse, which would make a lot of life like hell.

So who's right here?

And the improvement I propose is... stop murdering suspected criminals with drones. Boy, that was simple.

If it were only that easy.

Then I suggest you come up with an argument that doesn't boil down to "won't somebody PLEASE think of the chil... er, soldiers?!"

I don't want to convince you. Government needs people like you if there's to be any hope of change whatsoever. Shout loudly enough and the powers that be have to listen to you at some point.

If you force me to take a side on this issue, I will say that downtown may be on to something with using a public panels, although that comes with a wholly new set of cons and does not remove the underlying problem: blowing people up with hellfire drones.