In practice we kill whomever we wish to kill overseas

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

We target and kill people every day. No trials. No standards of evidence. Often without even a clearly defined crime.

We kill civilians and combatants alike without a hint of due process.

That is all true.

So why are people upset about this targeted assassination thing?

Because it is presented as a normal power of government procedurally.

The US is not supposed to kill its citizens without due process. In practice we do, of course, but it is not something to formalize. Cops sometimes serve a warrant on an armed-and-dangerous type with a strong suspicion that in practice the accused is not going to survive the encounter. But that is not the same thing as the Mayor authorizing the police to just whack the guy.

Yes, we know that Jimmy the Snake probably won't be taken alive but we do not conflate that practical reality with an official judgment of some sort. Even lying dead on the floor Jimmy the Snake is still an "alleged" criminal.

Remember when we tried to assassinate Saddam Hussein right before the outbreak of the Iraq War? (The "decapitation" phase of the war.) We identified him as a military command and control target and targeted him the same way we targeted satellite dishes.

We did not say we were trying to blow him up for the crime of genocide.

Is that a distinction without a difference? Well, to Saddam it was, but to the USA it was not.

There is a difference between abrogating laws in practice and abrogating them formally by presidential decree. The first is distasteful in the way war usually is, the second is precedent and formally undermining the primacy of the law.

This issue does not mark Obama as a monster or anything like that. It is, however, an encroachment of executive authority that should probably be resisted because the slippery slope is real.

Since we can whack this person with impunity in the normal course of the war on terror why taint the system by formalizing that practical reality of warfare as if it is now a de facto part of our justice apparatus? This is why John Yoo was such a problem... if you want to torture somebody in a ticking-bomb hypothetical then just do it, but please don't dress it up as a normal part of our system. Because next thing you know authorities are looking to that precedent.... "Well, this case is arguably like a ticking-bomb scenario..." and so on.

(And concern about encroachment of executive power does not signify sympathy for the terrorists any more than opposing torture signifies sympathy for the terrorists. The only sympathy is for our conception of our system of government.)

[Jokerman]

1. Excellent points. K & R

[derby378]

2. It does indicate, however, that Obama is turning his back on Democratic principles

This is so wrong. We put him in there to change things for the better.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Authorized to capture or kill. Not a direct order to kill.

[vaberella]

4. I believe it's still supposition at this point, if I'm not correct.

It's a claim made but I have yet to see this confirmed. I know the ACLU is demanding paperwork on whether this is fact and the evidence. Correct me if I'm wrong of course.

[TwilightGardener]

8. I honestly don't know, just read the news that's been posted on this--some of it

from the UK.

[vaberella]

9. I don't know either. The WH hasn't come out with a statement yet.

I believe it was the a CIA official who made a statement. But none of it's clear either. How does the UK know more?!

[ShortnFiery]

21. Newsflash: Obama is the President - he's responsible for the crimes that the CIA commits. eom

[Arctic Dave]

11. How does one capture someone with a Predator missile strike?

This seems to be the prefered method of the military "capture or kill" order.

[TwilightGardener]

12. Well, they do and have captured many, and have killed many. Can go either way, I guess.

I assume it depends on where these folks are hiding, and how feasible it is to send in troops/agents, among other things. Of course, this man always has the option of turning himself in.

[jberryhill]

14. That is a good point, which is why he should turn himself in for trial /nt

[truth2power]

15. You're kidding, right?....

Kind of like Eric Holder said, regarding KSM, that he was sure if he were brought to trial in NY, that he would be found guilty and executed, and even if, by some possibility he was acquitted, they would never let him go.

How can anyone licensed to practice law make such an absurd statement? We have no justice system in this country anymore when our own AG can claim that the outcome of a trial is already a done-deal; nevermind saying that if he's found not-guilty, they'll incarcerate him anyway. Holder is a worthless piece of crap.

Obama has already said al-Awlaki is a terrorist and deserves to die. End of story. We don't need no stinkin' trial, I guess.

And he should turn himself in. Riiight.... :eyes:

[jberryhill]

16. Are you serious?

"How can anyone licensed to practice law make such an absurd statement?"

I would expect a prosecutor to have confidence in his ability to obtain a conviction. I don't see why you find the statement to be so "absurd". In fact, I would expect a prosecutor to open a trial by telling the jury that he is going to prove the accused to be guilty. You seem to be one of those folks who does not understand the role of innocence presumption in a trial. It is a presumption that establishes the burden of proof. You can bet that nobody at the prosecution table is considering anyone to be innocent for one red hot second before or during a trial.

Why shouldn't he turn himself in?

People are killed during the commission of crimes all of the time. If I am holding a group of people hostage in a bank, then police sharpshooters are going to position themselves to blow my head off if they can get a clear shot. If, instead, I walk out of that bank with my hands up and no weapon, then I am going to be arrested, tried, and yes, convicted to a very high degree of certainty.

Your point seems to be that police should never shoot to kill. Police do shoot to kill. That's not a lack of due process. That is a response to a threatening situation in which the suspect cannot be apprehended. If Yemen wants to let us in to arrest this guy, that's fine. Or, as I said, he can turn himself in. But if he is an ongoing safety threat and does not make himself amenable to arrest or surrender, then shooting him is no more exceptional than situations which occur in the course of law enforcement every single day in this country.

Take that cop-killer in Washington state a while back. He could run, in which case he ran a real risk of being shot - which he was during an apparent attempt to sneak up on another cop - or he could have turned himself in for arrest and trial. But I didn't see any great hue and cry over the fact that, yes, he was shot while remaining at large.

[ShortnFiery]

22. Yes, until it's turned ON US, the citizens. Send in the DRONES?

Think about this long and hard fellow Americans: Do you want a drone to come and KILL you or your loved one's.

NO CHARGES - NO TRIAL - fast forward to EXECUTION on who's WORD?!?

[jberryhill]

23. Deadly force is turned on Americans every day by police in threat situations

Let me introduce you to Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker:

[truth2power]

24. I think you're doing a bit of a lateral shuffle, here...

Subtly changing the tone of what Holder said.

There is a difference between expressing confidence in one's ability to prove the facts of a case (as any prosecutor would be expected to do), and asserting unequivocally that a defendent will be found guilty.

My recollection is that Holder expressed the issue in the latter sense. I don't have time right now, but I will try to find Holder's actual statement in that regard.

You still didn't address how, if KSM is found not-guilty, he still won't be released. This is the more egregious assertion, IMO.

[vaberella]

5. Good post.

K/R.

[BeFree]

6. absolute power thing

The constitution placed limits upon the government to try and eliminate absolute power being used.

They knew that man would abuse any such privilege so they tried to make sure no man had such power, and for a while is worked. Things are rapidly changing, eh?

[Hestia]

7. IMHO, I believe actions like this are from Bush appointees who are still in there

doing a run end over Obama. They are all over the place at Justice Dept. Is Obama's signature on a document stating this okay? Or is a Bush appointee who signed off on it?

[spoony]

10. Great post.

Sums up nicely what's been gnawing at me about this.

[chill_wind]

13. Putting this out there so publicly throws a political bone to the

rabid right at the same time headlines come out on nuclear arms policy.

John Brennan needs to be able to out-Cheney Cheney.

Political push-back.


John Brennan rails on Dick Cheney, explains 'systemic failure' (January)

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0103/John-Brennan-rails-on-Dick-Cheney-explains-systemic-failure


Later in January, this gets rolled out...

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. . . .

The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, "it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them," a senior administration official said. "They are then part of the enemy."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen

[underseasurveyor]

17. And if we just omit one little detail

"Later in January, this gets rolled out...

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. . . .

The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, "it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them," a senior administration official said. "They are then part of the enemy."


Simply omit the word 'abroad' and it's a whole new game and well, any "strong evidence" needed can be manufactured later. Until such a time trial by media should be sufficient enough to convince the masses of a persons guilt. A dangerous slide.

And to the OP: Great post BTW

[chill_wind]

18. I'm sure a future Liz Cheney in the State Department

or another rump Pentagon OSP one day would go to great lengths to get all the facts just right.

[underseasurveyor]

19. You know she/they would

Being so honest and true as they have proven so many times in the past.

[ShortnFiery]

20. And we wonder why THEY hate us? ... it sure as hell is not for our freedoms. eom