Killing an American
NBC News was leaked a Justice Department memo that discusses the Obama Administration policy regarding the drone killing of United States citizens who have not been convicted -- or even indicted of -- crimes.
I'm of the mind that fellow American Anwar al Awlaki deserved to die for all of the murder he's encouraged and facilitated. I have no doubt that a jury of his peers would deliberate for about 30 seconds before reaching the same conclusion. But, being American, I believe that such a trial is a good idea. But al Awlaki is really the "worst" American to be killed in a drone strike and his killing isn't terribly controversial among the masses. But he's also just one of the Americans President Obama has ordered killed. And NBC News tells us just how broadly that killing power is being interpreted:
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.
The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.
A few years ago my husband pointed out how odd it was that Obama was mirandizing Nigerian terrorists who sought to kill us but killing Americans without going through the judicial process:
But if it becomes accepted the president can publicly assert his power to kill U.S. citizens, we're setting a truly dangerous precedent. It's not that I expect Obama to cavalierly kill people -- but I worry about what future presidents might do.
I'm actually worried enough about this president. Mike Riggs points out "5 Disturbing Aspects of the DOJ White Paper on the President's License to Kill" at Reason. Here's #4:
4. Although the requirement that capture be "infeasible" could be read as ruling out targeted killings within the United States or in friendly countries willing and able to assist in the apprehension of suspected terrorists, the paper identifies no geographic limit on lethal strikes against people deemed to be imminent threats. It explicitly rejects the notion that attacks should be limited to "the zone of active hostilities." (Hence the drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.) As for obtaining permission from the government of the country where the target is located, the paper says "a lethal operation in a foreign country would be consistent with international legal principles of sovereignty and neutrality if it were conducted, for example, with the consent of the host nation's government or after a determination that the host nation is unable or unwilling to suppress the threat posed by the individual targeted." In other words, firing missiles at a suspected terrorist is permissible under international law only if the host nation's government 1) agrees to allow the attack or 2) refuses to allow the attack.
You probably won't be surprised that the New York Times has put all this on page A6 of the paper. I have absolutely no doubt that President Bush would have received the same treatment if he were killing Americans, and defending same, in such a manner.
- Comment (65)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (13)
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: Killing an American
I'm totally with you on this, Mollie.
Alwaki could easily have been tried in a military court in absentia, so that there was some legal underpinning to the execution. ALL American citizens have the rights under the constitution. Those that choose to support the enemy against us are, indeed, traitors, but that determination is by court, not by fiat. Else we have a prince/king who can decide what is or isn't "treason".
The other disturbing aspect of this administration is the unwillingness to capture and interrogate enemy combatants. With such a reluctance to gather intelligence it's no wonder they have stooped to simple execution.
But liberals rarely want to know much as much as kill the opposition. Which should scare the you-know-what out of all of us.
Feb '11
Re: Killing an American
From the official White House Flickr page:
It appears the WH has forgotten about this little thing called the 1st Amendment. (Surely the only time in recent memory, no?). You're one of my favorites, Mollie. I don't want to read stories about you being rushed into police custody during the dark of night. (Did that happen recently too? Or was it just my imagination?).
Edited on February 5, 2013 at 3:40pmNov '11
Re: Killing an American
Gouverneur Morris:
You're one of my favorites, Mollie. I don't want to read stories about you being rushed into police custody during the dark of night. (Did that happen recently too? Or was it just my imagination?).
The government could claim her posting of that modified caused a riot and the death of an ambassador and then use a drone to drop a bomb on her.
If you wanted to stir things up, Mollie, you could've posted the same thing except with the title Why Are You Okay With This? and then watch limited government conservatives twist themselves into knots defending it.
Sep '10
Re: Killing an American
Abortion? Check
Euthanasia/Death Panels? Check
Drone strikes on American citizens? Check
Don't close Guantanamo Bay? Check
Being sued by 43 Catholic Diocese? Check
Negotiations with Iranian Nukes and Norks? Check
Biggest threat to American national security? The second amendment.
Pull!
Re: Killing an American
Devereaux:
The other disturbing aspect of this administration is the unwillingness to capture and interrogate enemy combatants. With such a reluctance to gather intelligence it's no wonder they have stooped to simple execution.
But liberals rarely want to know much as much as kill the opposition. Which should scare the you-know-what out of all of us. · 15 minutes ago
It blows my mind that they were the ones who wanted to shut down Guantanamo. Or as Josh Trevino tweeted:
Re: Killing an American
Fred Cole
If you wanted to stir things up, Mollie, you could've posted the same thing except with the title Why Are You Okay With This? and then watch limited government conservatives twist themselves into knots defending it. · 12 minutes ago
I couldn't get The Cure song out of my head while writing this.
Apr '11
Re: Killing an American
What a bunch of whiners!
Alawaki is not the first American ordered dead by the government without trial or judicial proceedings. We did not bother with any judicial review for the hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers killed by the US army? I also don't think any one bothered with a trial in absentia for Bonnie and Clyde who were gunned down by police in an ambush no less.
You go abroad, and join Al Queda you risk getting blown up. Seems fair to me.
Re: Killing an American
Valiuth: What a bunch of whiners!
Alawaki is not the first American ordered dead by the government without trial or judicial proceedings. We did not bother with any judicial review for the hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers killed by the US army? I also don't think any one bothered with a trial in absentia for Bonnie and Clyde who were gunned down by police in an ambush no less.
You go abroad, and join Al Queda you risk getting blown up. Seems fair to me. · 2 minutes ago
Good point. If we can't trust the federal government, whom can we trust, really? And it's not like there's ever been evidence of government programs expanding in size and scope after they're entrenched for a while.
Edited on February 5, 2013 at 4:26pmJan '11
Re: Killing an American
Well said, Mollie.
I can't claim this as an original thought, but our modern terrorism laws are functionally identical to the old British treason laws that the Founders so rightly abhorred; the government need only accuse you in order to get everything they want, and to get it immediately.
They're incompatible with republican government.
Edited on February 5, 2013 at 4:11pmJan '11
Re: Killing an American
Valiuth:
We did not bother with any judicial review for the hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers killed by the US army? I also don't think any one bothered with a trial in absentia for Bonnie and Clyde who were gunned down by police in an ambush no less.
I don't think a national insurrection with millions of combatants in uniform is comparable to the GWOT. Also, Congress did at least eventually get around to properly suspending Habeas Corpus, which was entirely appropriate.
Nov '11
Re: Killing an American
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Fred Cole
If you wanted to stir things up, Mollie, you could've posted the same thing except with the title Why Are You Okay With This? and then watch limited government conservatives twist themselves into knots defending it. · 12 minutes ago
I couldn't get The Cure song out of my head while writing this. · 21 minutes ago
That's amusing. I had not heard that song before. Appreciate, Mollie, the lengths I went through for you. There's no speakers on this computer, so I had to Ricochet on my iPod to be able to listen to that.
May '12
Re: Killing an American
The reelected Ecuadorian president was a shoo-in for reelection. But, to insure his reelection he debased his opponent (Romney?), he controlled the press (MSM) and he gave out goodies (Santa Claus). Sound familiar?
Apr '11
Re: Killing an American
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Good point. If we can't trust the federal government, who can we trust, really? And it's not like there's ever been evidence of government programs expanding in size and scope after they're entrenched for a while. · 4 minutes ago
It is also not like federal policies have never changed due to rising negative opinion. Obama's policies in this case are not much different from the mean. He hasn't crossed some new line. The executive branch has always been understood have the power to order the army to go and kill people at home and abroad, who stand in rebellion. Especially when it is so obvious.
The checks and balances on this should not come from a judicial review. It needs to come from congress, being able to review these decisions and politicizing the decisions and results.
Tom: If you stand accused you can deflate the issue by turning yourself in. Forcing the matter to go to court. This is not the same thing. As what you mention.
Apr '11
Re: Killing an American
Tom Meyer
Valiuth:
We did not bother with any judicial review for the hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers killed by the US army? I also don't think any one bothered with a trial in absentia for Bonnie and Clyde who were gunned down by police in an ambush no less.
I don't think a national insurrection with millions of combatants in uniform is comparable to the GWOT. Also, Congress did at least eventually get around to properly suspending Habeas Corpus, which was entirely appropriate. · 10 minutes ago
Ok, granted the Civil War is an extreme example, but Bonnie and Clyde are not. I also believe Hoover did have a thing early on for his officers just gunning down notorious outlaws. Plus remember the days of Dead of Alive posters Bush so cleverly alluded to that one time. There is a long history of gunning down criminals that can't be captured in this country without any kind of trial. The Republic did not fall then it will not fall now. At least because of this.
Jun '11
Re: Killing an American
Instructive that their first instinct is to behave like defense attorneys towards foreigners and like assassins towards citizens.
Sep '10
Re: Killing an American
Even SCOTUS can't stop POTUS from using TOTUS to conceal DOTUS.
Nov '10
Re: Killing an American
Standing on the beach with a gun in my hand...
I have no issue with this. I'm with Valiuth. Join the Navy and see the world. Join an international terrorist organization hell bent on destroying American and her allies, well then I'm not going to wring my hands over your constitutional rights.
Jan '11
Re: Killing an American
Valiuth
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Good point. If we can't trust the federal government, who can we trust, really? And it's not like there's ever been evidence of government programs expanding in size and scope after they're entrenched for a while. · 4 minutes ago
Tom: If you stand accused you can deflate the issue by turning yourself in. Forcing the matter to go to court. This is not the same thing. As what you mention.
So long as you know you're accused (in Awlaki's case, the information was public).
My attitude on this is very simple; the burden of doing a trial like this -- or of getting warrants in drug cases or FISA -- is very light. If the government thinks it has such a slam-dunk case, it shouldn't be hard to do reasonable due process.
Jan '11
Re: Killing an American
And you trust the president -- both this one in particular, as well as any other -- to have sole determination as to whether or not you're a terrorist?
As Kevin Williamson put it, "A government big enough to whack its citizens with drones is big enough to make them buy health insurance."
Jun '12
Re: Killing an American
What impresses me about all this is the fact that Obama bases his claim for the authority to use force in this way on "the right of self-defense".
How deeply ironic, given his assault on the Second Amendment, where he claims that our citizens have no right to keep and bear "weapons of war".
Our constitutional-scholar-in-chief needs to re-read U.S. v. Miller.
Assuming, of course, that he's already read it once.