Obama administration considering killing another US citizen without due process

[Texashiker]

Speaking of foreign drug lords..Whatever happened to Noriega?

According to wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega

he is in a Panama prison.

 

[rudeguy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2013/12/21/covert-action-in-colombia/

So...we gave Columbia a GPS receiver? That is the same as killing an American citizen?

In March 2008, according to nine U.S. and Colombian officials, the Colombian Air Force, with tacit U.S. approval, launched U.S.-made smart bombs across the border into Ecuador to kill a senior FARC leader, Raul Reyes. The indirect U.S. role in that attack has not been previously disclosed.

 

[Fern]

To a jury of the accused peers, just as his rights ensure him the right to.

The government does not have the right to determine guilt. That is the job of the jury.

I don't think we can do that:

In the 1993 case Crosby v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law "prohibits the trial in absentia of a defendant who is not present at the beginning of trial."

And I tend to think that changing the law to allow for trials in absentia is a bad idea. I also tend to think trials in absentia would pose constitutional problems (e.g., right to face accusers).

The (portion?) of the new policy quoted in the article seems reasonable to me:

Under new guidelines Obama addressed in a speech last year to calm anger overseas at the extent of the U.S. drone campaign, lethal force must only be used "to prevent or stop attacks against U.S. persons, and even then, only when capture is not feasible and no other reasonable alternatives exist to address the threat effectively." The target must also pose "a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons" — the legal definition of catching someone in the act of plotting a lethal attack.

Edit: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...hen_can_a_defendant_be_tried_in_absentia.html

As has long been the case, the point of contention is whether this sort of terrorism is a crime or war. I.e., do we treat such acts as run-of-mill criminal or as acts of war?

As a conservative I've long argued it was war, and have never criticized Obama for using drones on US citizens engaged in these acts. I'll note a lot of Southerners were killed in the civil and I've not seen anybody cry about their deaths without a trial.

To be sure the liberals/Dems have some hypocrisy/inconsistent positions here. Mostly they have long argued for the 'criminal' approach with the inclusion of all that it entails. However, Obama is pursuing the 'war' approach here lately yet they defend him.

Fern

 

[JEDIYoda]

I support upholding the law.

hahahahaaaaaa I nearly spit my coffee...hahahaaaa

 

[brycejones]

So the same bunch who is gun ho to shoot the bad guy in the states is suddenly all about pussy footing around whacking a terrorist in a foreign country?

 

[Moonbeam]

This is like the abortion issue, a conflict between two absolute rights, the right to self defense and the constitutional right to trial. As I see it, the inability to bring somebody who hides from justice to trial does not eliminate the right of self defense. Undergo the justice process or face summary execution in my opinion, if that it the only means by which you can be deterred from your aim.

 

[rudeguy]

So the same bunch who is gun ho to shoot the bad guy in the states is suddenly all about pussy footing around whacking a terrorist in a foreign country?

Its called our rights and they are very important to us.

The government does not get to decide on its own whether or not to kill a US citizen. If someone is coming at me with a knife or has a gun pointed at me, I have the right to defend myself. The government has no rights. Matter of fact, the Constitution is there to tell the government what it can't do. And judging someone on its own is something that it is specifically not allowed to do.

Its more than a piece of paper folks.

 

[brycejones]

Its called our rights and they are very important to us.

The government does not get to decide on its own whether or not to kill a US citizen. If someone is coming at me with a knife or has a gun pointed at me, I have the right to defend myself. The government has no rights. Matter of fact, the Constitution is there to tell the government what it can't do. And judging someone on its own is something that it is specifically not allowed to do.

Its more than a piece of paper folks.

Generally I don't disagree with you in 99.999% of cases. However these are very unusual cases and if you look at the number of cases cited you can't say this is part of some broad government policy being applied at a whim. The flip side of your argument is that somehow being a citizen acting against the interests of the United States makes you immune from the same levers of national power that a non-citizen would be subject to.

I understand the concern about the slippery slope but the reality doesn't seem to support those concerns currently.

 

[rudeguy]

Generally I don't disagree with you in 99.999% of cases. However these are very unusual cases and if you look at the number of cases cited you can't say this is part of some broad government policy being applied at a whim. The flip side of your argument is that somehow being a citizen acting against the interests of the United States makes you immune from the same levers of national power that a non-citizen would be subject to.

I understand the concern about the slippery slope but the reality doesn't seem to support those concerns currently.

As I stated earlier, I think its what we should do. We should blow up every single one of these assholes. Send a JDAM right down their windpipes. BUT...if they are American citizens, they have rights. And we can't always do what should be done.

We have very elite teams of soldiers trained to do what needs to be done. We attempt to capture him and if he puts up a fight, then he chose his destiny. But air mailing him a bomb with no due process just isn't something that can be done if we follow the Constitution. And we have to do that.

 

[Moonbeam]

Its called our rights and they are very important to us.

The government does not get to decide on its own whether or not to kill a US citizen. If someone is coming at me with a knife or has a gun pointed at me, I have the right to defend myself. The government has no rights. Matter of fact, the Constitution is there to tell the government what it can't do. And judging someone on its own is something that it is specifically not allowed to do.

Its more than a piece of paper folks.

The right to life is probably the most important right we have. If you seek to hide behind your right to life to take my life your right to life comes to an end.

The only question here is whether the target is actually an immanent threat. We determine that normally in a court of law. But if a person will not submit to justice and has made credible threats against the lives of others, bye bye.

 

[rudeguy]

The right to life is probably the most important right we have. If you seek to hide behind your right to life to take my life your right to life comes to an end.

The only question here is whether the target is actually an immanent threat. We determine that normally in a court of law. But if a person will not submit to justice and has made credible threats against the lives of others, bye bye.

But have they even tried due process? Have they indicted him? Would a military tribunal be acceptable?

I don't think any of us are disagreeing here. People like this don't deserve to suck oxygen. BUT that is for a jury to decide.

If this is allowed to continue, the requirements will become more relaxed. Just like they always do. Would it be possible for the government to decide that I am a threat since I don't respect them? I mean I openly say that the government needs to be eliminated and restarted as it was meant to be. I own guns. Does that make me a terrorist eligible to have a bomb sent my way?

If we can send in a bomb, we can send in a team to get him. Then let him chose his destiny.

 

[Texashiker]

As has long been the case, the point of contention is whether this sort of terrorism is a crime or war. I.e., do we treat such acts as run-of-mill criminal or as acts of war?

Around world War I or World War II the United States government set forth guidelines to differentiate between an enemy combatant and a resistance fighter.

Some of the guidelines included wearing a uniform and having a formal chain of command. I think this is spelled out in one of the Geneva conventions? It has been several years since I read the exact details.

Under the Geneva Convention, our Constitution and previous examples set during times of war, are people labeled as terrorist in the middle east an enemy combatant or a resistance fighter.

After all, we are the invading force. As long as we have troops in a foreign nation aren't the citizens of that nation entitled to wage war against the United States?

 

[zinfamous]

I tend to wrestle with this issue but invariably, I tend to side with these arguments:

Bombs away, I say.

Some times you gotta go Jack Bauer on some people.

 

[Moonbeam]

rudeguy;36054266: But have they even tried due process? Have they indicted him? Would a military tribunal be acceptable?

M: It should be transparent at the very least so that each citizen could determine for himself the validity of a real threat, I think.

r: I don't think any of us are disagreeing here. People like this don't deserve to suck oxygen. BUT that is for a jury to decide.

M: Seems to me that for a jury you need a defendant in court with legal representation.

r: If this is allowed to continue, the requirements will become more relaxed. Just like they always do. Would it be possible for the government to decide that I am a threat since I don't respect them? I mean I openly say that the government needs to be eliminated and restarted as it was meant to be. I own guns. Does that make me a terrorist eligible to have a bomb sent my way?

M: I view this as subjective opinion and rather paranoid at that. I don't buy into the slippery slope slide into dictatorship crap. The President of the US has a sworn and moral duty to protect the people of the United States. Only an intelligent, informed, and activist citizenry can save us from anything. We aren't allowed to torture people either but what would you do with somebody who had buried your child in a tomb with 24 hours of air and refused to talk. Turn your back while I go ape shit please. But I will gladly submit to the crimes I committed and do my time. The President should be no different. An unjust execution should cost him dearly if it can be proven. Somewhere along the line there has to be some modicum of trust. One might expect that all Americans might be somewhat on the same team.

r: If we can send in a bomb, we can send in a team to get him. Then let him chose his destiny.

M: Are you willing to go first? Shouldn't it be volunteers who believe as you do who risk their lives so? I don't want the deaths of those who are willing to defend this country sacrificed for an air-headed attachment to Constitutional sentimentality that is real world impractical in the extreme. If a person will not face the courts where we claim justice lies, I would not send good lives into likely extreme risk to get him. The lives of such as we would send are every bit as valuable as any other citizen. I have some sympathy for the terrible dilemma the President is in with such cases.

 

[Fern]

Around world War I or World War II the United States government set forth guidelines to differentiate between an enemy combatant and a resistance fighter.

That's the problem, it's outdated.

Back then we bombed the bejesus out of regular cities too.

Those old rules/conventions need updating.

Some of the guidelines included wearing a uniform and having a formal chain of command. I think this is spelled out in one of the Geneva conventions? It has been several years since I read the exact details.

Under the Geneva Convention, our Constitution and previous examples set during times of war, are people labeled as terrorist in the middle east an enemy combatant or a resistance fighter.

It/they don't really address it. That's the problem. When those agreements were being established current terrorism/jihads weren't foreseen.

After all, we are the invading force. As long as we have troops in a foreign nation aren't the citizens of that nation entitled to wage war against the United States?

Depends. E.g., if we're there by virtue of a treaty (SOF agreement etc.), no, they don't.

Fern

 

[zinfamous]

Can someone rationally explain to me why the libs wanted to close Gitmo because people were being held without due process but they are ok with killing American citizens without due process?

Nope, I sure can't.

The way I see it, droning one of these targets falls under the premise that active intelligence shows them to be in the process of planning a major attack on the US. For that, I feel it is treasonous and, if we are playing under the rules of war, it is justified. That doesn't mean I am not uncomfortable with such a decision--but such is life. Also, the problem here is that one relies on classified intel and what the government tells us is so. That is never grand.

As far as Gitmo, you have many prisoners that were picked up and shipped off simply for being in the area. For many of them, there are no charges and simply no evidence that they were even enemy combatants. Due process isn't part of the conversation, yet, because they haven't even been charged for a crime.

To me, they are different, perhaps merely by nuance, but I can see how holding differing opinions on these issues is seen as morally conflicting.

 

[kage69]

Here is a clue. If we plan a drone strike in advance. It isnt time sensitive nor life or death.

You can keep it; it's far too simplistic and ignores the logistical and operational hurdles working in that part of the world creates. If a Predator catches people showing up to a meeting for an upcoming terror attack but the primary is only there for a short time to deliver weapons, money, wish the lemmings well, etc before he disappears for another 10 months, do we try to plan and implement a bag n grab at a moments notice in a remote region where Americans are hated and with little hope of getting there in time? Or do we tell the drone who has been monitoring the place from a loiter pattern to send a Hellfire in, bringing that leaders agenda to an end in a matter of minutes? I shouldn't need to detail how missions like the one that got OBL simply aren't thrown together in a matter of hours, or even days. Life is it's own game, and it doesn't hit pause for anyone. Sometimes when you have a shot you may not get that shot again. Ever. That not one of your boogeymen, it's a simple fact.

And neither were the last two killings. These people are not holding anybody hostage nor pulling a trigger. Your analogy is horrible.

No, your comprehension is horrible. You're clinging to my hostage example even though I asked you not to, explaining that hostages were used as an example and my position in no way relies on your specific, narrow view of a scenario. In keeping with my request, I'll just note here that terrorists have many ways of committing terror acts, including acts that don't include hostages or a gunman. Sometimes we have to act before we lose someone in a sea of refugees or pilgrims, never to be seen again by Western eyes. Sometimes we have to prevent the sale of something going into the wrong hands. Maybe we have to act before a convoy crosses a border into the heavily defended territory of an ally, or staunch rival. My point is, quit looking at modern counter terrorism like it's something you can sum up with a few sentences. It doesn't work that way and you do yourself no favors here by pretending otherwise.

I have been very consistent on this topic.

Well that's a comfort. You've been consistent in viewing this issue through an ideological lens. Grats. That is better than the constant back and forth that some do though, I'll admit.

And dont preach about gullible when you are defending the practice of killing US citizens without trial when all the govt can tell you as evidence is "trust us". It requires an extreme case of gullibility to sit there and just accept it, or worse defend it.

Don't put words in my mouth. I've been consistent in acknowledging the risk of abuse, and have stated that I require safeguards and oversight in order to become comfortable with this kind of last resort action. I also happen to have my own ideas about seeing to that, but I get the impression you are more concerned with painting me as an all trusting, Feds can do no wrong type. If you've read any of my posts on this issue before you'd know that. I don't disagree with Obama and his generals that this can need to happen at times, but I'd like the process to be as far removed as possible from the days when Cheney was giving Congress, it's Gang of Six, the Pentagon, State, our allies and the ambassadors with them one big collective FUCK OFF and directing his little cadre of meat eaters as he saw fit. Would I be gullible to think you were just as incensed then as you are now?

We have never actively killed American citizens not involved in a firefight during battle without trial on order from the president of the United States

Technically true, although one of those points that doesn't mean much in the age of PMCs and presidents-in-name-only. Americans have been "actively" killed in firefights, stand offs and rescue attempts, within our own borders and without trial for some time now. There isn't much political hay to be made criticizing a police captain or sharp shooter for doing the same thing DoD and the White House do though, is there?

So no, this isnt a step up in accountability. Further what accountability Obama has erected for himself can as the article notes be suspended if he deems it necessary.

Of course it is, because any oversight is a step up in accountability. It helps not to have people like Cheney and Rumsfeld calling the shots, but there is still plenty of risk there and while it's a lackluster start, I believe more can be done by Congress and the Executive to prevent abuse. You're acting like I'm in love with the White House's take on this. I'm not, at all, but at least they aren't sticking their heads in the sand while Americans die. It's a work in progress, with more to be done.

Ahh this is the perfect response. The lives of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The battle call that has been used countless times in history to erect tyranny. Seriously, did you just spit that out and not recognize what you are saying?

I can see why someone who has already been trying to take creative license with my views and position would think that, but it still smacks of a weak cop out. I am disappoint.

As for answering your question. We have had millions die for these legal protections througout our history. For you to piss all over their graves because a boogeyman scares you halfway around the world is shameful.

Take your patriotic indignation and shove it up back up your ass where you got it.

The American who joins AQ is doing the pissing here, not those acknowledging where the real world and domestic law collide. If I wanted to piss on some enlisted graves, I'd be a neocon, believing might makes right and that the military is an expendable medium to be used to not to defend ourselves or allies, but to protect our currency and the goals of our larger corporations. As it happens I care greatly for my colleagues, friends and family doing their parts in various services, and I don't mind at all saying that I count their sweaty PT socks as more valuable than the life of a single American jihadi who has American blood on his hands. Capture would be preferable, cuts down on all that martyr bullshit, but when all other avenues aren't possible I'm ok with the bad guys having a Hellfire show up for tea and dates while the good guys not risking getting shot, blown up, or captured, then to be featured in one of AQ's home movies.


I hope that clarifies my position. You don't have to agree with it, but I'd appreciate you not adding your own assumptions or views and attributing it to me.

 

[kage69]

If we can send in a bomb, we can send in a team to get him. Then let him chose his destiny.

Breathtakingly ignorant, and quite false.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So I ask you. Why do law abiding, non-crazy Americans have to die in order for those who hate America to enjoy the rights they've already repudiated? How many lives of pilots, entry team members or spooks does it take to equal the rights of a person who works for AQ?

The right of law abiding citizens to live outweighs the right of terrorists to use protections they've refused by choice and action. I don't think I can break it down further than that.

As Ben Franklin once said:

"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
(11 Nov. 1755)

Amendment VI (American Constitution)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Actually, in 2004 the RNC determined that people's free speech was in fact entirely subject to it's election year events. The White House decided, at will, that the rights of free speech and assembly for people that didn't agree with the Cheney-Rove-Bush triumvirate were inconvenient.

Wearing the wrong political shirt? See ya! Want to hold a sign critical of the current admin? Sorry, you'll have to take that to the 'free speech zone' a quarter mile that way...

Goes back long before 2004 (when the Democratic Party did the same thing at their convention) and is happily used by both Democratic politicians and Republican politicians. And they are wrong no matter who is behind them.

"Free speech zones were used in Boston at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. The free speech zones organized by the authorities in Boston were boxed in by concrete walls, invisible to the FleetCenter where the convention was held and criticized harshly as a "protest pen" or "Boston's Camp X-Ray".[11] "Some protesters for a short time Monday [July 26, 2004] converted the zone into a mock prison camp by donning hoods and marching in the cage with their hands behind their backs."[12] A coalition of groups protesting the Iraq War challenged the planned protest zones. U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock was sympathetic to their request: "One cannot conceive of what other design elements could be put into a space to create a more symbolic affront to the role of free expression.".[13] However, he ultimately rejected the petition to move the protest zones closer to the FleetCenter.[14]


Free speech zones were also used in New York City at the 2004 Republican National Convention. According to Mike McGuire, a columnist for the online anti-war magazine Nonviolent Activist, "The policing of the protests during the 2004 Republican National Convention represent[ed] another interesting model of repression. The NYPD tracked every planned action and set up traps. As marches began, police would emerge from their hiding places — building vestibules, parking garages, or vans — and corral the dissenters with orange netting that read 'POLICE LINE – DO not CROSS,' establishing areas they ironically called 'ad-hoc free speech zones.' One by one, protesters were arrested and detained—some for nearly two days."[15] Both the Democratic and Republican National parties were jointly awarded a 2005 Jefferson Muzzle from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, "For their mutual failure to make the preservation of First Amendment freedoms a priority during the last Presidential election".[13]"

And earlier:

"During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta, Georgia set up a "designated protest zone"[5] so the convention would not be disrupted. A pro-choice demonstrator opposing an Operation Rescue group said Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young "put us in a free-speech cage."[6] "Protest zones" were used during the 1992 and 1996 United States presidential nominating conventions[7]


Free speech zones have been used for non-political purposes. Through 1990s, the San Francisco International Airport played host to a steady stream of religious groups (Hare Krishnas in particular), preachers, and beggars. The city considered whether this public transportation hub was required to host free speech, and to what extent. As a compromise, two "free speech booths" were installed in the South Terminal, and groups wishing to speak but not having direct business at the airport were directed there. These booths still exist, although permits are required to access the booths.[8]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#History

 

[Victorian Gray]

Nope, I sure can't.

The way I see it, droning one of these targets falls under the premise that active intelligence shows them to be in the process of planning a major attack on the US. For that, I feel it is treasonous and, if we are playing under the rules of war, it is justified. That doesn't mean I am not uncomfortable with such a decision--but such is life. Also, the problem here is that one relies on classified intel and what the government tells us is so. That is never grand.

Who is the United States at war with and when was the official declaration of war made, as authorized by Congress?

 

[Fern]

Who is the United States at war with and when was the official declaration of war made, as authorized by Congress?

Answers:

Terrorists etc.

Right after 9/11

Yes, it (the AUMF) was passed by Congress.

Fern

 

[rudeguy]

rudeguy;36054266: But have they even tried due process? Have they indicted him? Would a military tribunal be acceptable?

M: It should be transparent at the very least so that each citizen could determine for himself the validity of a real threat, I think.

r: I don't think any of us are disagreeing here. People like this don't deserve to suck oxygen. BUT that is for a jury to decide.

M: Seems to me that for a jury you need a defendant in court with legal representation.

r: If this is allowed to continue, the requirements will become more relaxed. Just like they always do. Would it be possible for the government to decide that I am a threat since I don't respect them? I mean I openly say that the government needs to be eliminated and restarted as it was meant to be. I own guns. Does that make me a terrorist eligible to have a bomb sent my way?

M: I view this as subjective opinion and rather paranoid at that. I don't buy into the slippery slope slide into dictatorship crap. The President of the US has a sworn and moral duty to protect the people of the United States. Only an intelligent, informed, and activist citizenry can save us from anything. We aren't allowed to torture people either but what would you do with somebody who had buried your child in a tomb with 24 hours of air and refused to talk. Turn your back while I go ape shit please. But I will gladly submit to the crimes I committed and do my time. The President should be no different. An unjust execution should cost him dearly if it can be proven. Somewhere along the line there has to be some modicum of trust. One might expect that all Americans might be somewhat on the same team.

r: If we can send in a bomb, we can send in a team to get him. Then let him chose his destiny.

M: Are you willing to go first? Shouldn't it be volunteers who believe as you do who risk their lives so? I don't want the deaths of those who are willing to defend this country sacrificed for an air-headed attachment to Constitutional sentimentality that is real world impractical in the extreme. If a person will not face the courts where we claim justice lies, I would not send good lives into likely extreme risk to get him. The lives of such as we would send are every bit as valuable as any other citizen. I have some sympathy for the terrible dilemma the President is in with such cases.

Hell yes I would go. In a heartbeat. But I don't think I would have the qualifications.

Has the supreme court ruled on this? Isn't this the kind.of thing they are supposed to decide and not a bunch of basement dwellers on the internet?

If this is what needs to be done then so be it. But it can't be just for the president to decide. That is too much power for one man.

This whole situation just sucks.

 

[rudeguy]

Breathtakingly ignorant, and quite false.

Thank you for adding such an informative and we'll thought out post.

 

[rudeguy]

Nope, I sure can't.

The way I see it, droning one of these targets falls under the premise that active intelligence shows them to be in the process of planning a major attack on the US. For that, I feel it is treasonous and, if we are playing under the rules of war, it is justified. That doesn't mean I am not uncomfortable with such a decision--but such is life. Also, the problem here is that one relies on classified intel and what the government tells us is so. That is never grand.

As far as Gitmo, you have many prisoners that were picked up and shipped off simply for being in the area. For many of them, there are no charges and simply no evidence that they were even enemy combatants. Due process isn't part of the conversation, yet, because they haven't even been charged for a crime.

To me, they are different, perhaps merely by nuance, but I can see how holding differing opinions on these issues is seen as morally conflicting.

I see what you are saying and I don't disagree.

I just have a huge problem with any president deciding whether a citizen lives or dies.

Did this terrorist guy renounce his citizenship? That would make this mu h easier.