Executive Branch Memo institutionalizes right to kill US Citizens

«‹›17 »

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Executive Branch Memo institutionalizes right to kill US Citizens

Ccs: Feb 25, 2011

There's been some controversy surrounding who the Administration has ordered killed in the past, but this memo released by NBC News and analyzed by Glenn Greenwald really shows what a crazy power it is. I'm amazed that the government thinks it can get away with this, considering it's a power both Liberals and Conservatives should be against.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...l-list-doj-memo

quote:

Last night, NBC News' Michael Isikoff released a 16-page "white paper" prepared by the Obama DOJ that purports to justify Obama's power to target even Americans for assassination without due process (the memo is embedded in full below). This is not the primary OLC memo justifying Obama's kill list - that is still concealed - but it appears to track the reasoning of that memo as anonymously described to the New York Times in October 2011.

This new memo is entitled: "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force". It claims its conclusion is "reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal operation by the United States against a US citizen". Yet it is every bit as chilling as the Bush OLC torture memos in how its clinical, legalistic tone completely sanitizes the radical and dangerous power it purports to authorize.

quote:

1. Equating government accusations with guilt

The core distortion of the War on Terror under both Bush and Obama is the Orwellian practice of equating government accusations of terrorism with proof of guilt. One constantly hears US government defenders referring to "terrorists" when what they actually mean is: those accused by the government of terrorism. This entire memo is grounded in this deceit.

Time and again, it emphasizes that the authorized assassinations are carried out "against a senior operational leader of al-Qaida or its associated forces who poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States." Undoubtedly fearing that this document would one day be public, Obama lawyers made certain to incorporate this deceit into the title itself: "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida or An Associated Force."

This ensures that huge numbers of citizens - those who spend little time thinking about such things and/or authoritarians who assume all government claims are true - will instinctively justify what is being done here on the ground that we must kill the Terrorists or joining al-Qaida means you should be killed. That's the "reasoning" process that has driven the War on Terror since it commenced: if the US government simply asserts without evidence or trial that someone is a terrorist, then they are assumed to be, and they can then be punished as such - with indefinite imprisonment or death.

But of course, when this memo refers to "a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida", what it actually means is this: someone whom the President - in total secrecy and with no due process - has accused of being that. Indeed, the memo itself makes this clear, as it baldly states that presidential assassinations are justified when "an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US".

This is the crucial point: the memo isn't justifying the due-process-free execution of senior al-Qaida leaders who pose an imminent threat to the US. It is justifying the due-process-free execution of people secretly accused by the president and his underlings, with no due process, of being that. The distinction between (a) government accusations and (b) proof of guilt is central to every free society, by definition, yet this memo - and those who defend Obama's assassination power - willfully ignore it.

Those who justify all of this by arguing that Obama can and should kill al-Qaida leaders who are trying to kill Americans are engaged in supreme question-begging. Without any due process, transparency or oversight, there is no way to know who is a "senior al-Qaida leader" and who is posing an "imminent threat" to Americans. All that can be known is who Obama, in total secrecy, accuses of this.

quote:

The primary theory embraced by the Bush administration to justify its War on Terror policies was that the "battlefield" is no longer confined to identifiable geographical areas, but instead, the entire globe is now one big, unlimited "battlefield". That theory is both radical and dangerous because a president's powers are basically omnipotent on a "battlefield". There, state power is shielded from law, from courts, from constitutional guarantees, from all forms of accountability: anyone on a battlefield can be killed or imprisoned without charges. Thus, to posit the world as a battlefield is, by definition, to create an imperial, omnipotent presidency. That is the radical theory that unleashed all the rest of the controversial and lawless Bush/Cheney policies.

This "world-is-a-battlefield" theory was once highly controversial among Democrats. John Kerry famously denounced it when running for president, arguing instead that the effort against terrorism is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world".

But this global-war theory is exactly what lies at heart of the Obama approach to Terrorism generally and this memo specifically. It is impossible to defend Obama's assassination powers without embracing it (which is why key Obama officials have consistently done so). That's because these assassinations are taking place in countries far from any war zone, such as Yemen and Somalia. You can't defend the application of "war powers" in these countries without embracing the once-very-controversial Bush/Cheney view that the whole is now a "battlefield" and the president's war powers thus exist without geographic limits.

This new memo makes clear that this Bush/Cheney worldview is at the heart of the Obama presidency. The president, it claims, "retains authority to use force against al-Qaida and associated forces outside the area of active hostilities". In other words: there are, subject to the entirely optional "feasibility of capture" element, no geographic limits to the president's authority to kill anyone he wants. This power applies not only to war zones, but everywhere in the world that he claims a member of al-Qaida is found. This memo embraces and institutionalizes the core Bush/Cheney theory that justified the entire panoply of policies Democrats back then pretended to find so objectionable.

quote:

Specifically, the president's assassination power "does not require that the US have clear evidence that a specific attack . . . will take place in the immediate future". The US routinely assassinates its targets not when they are engaged in or plotting attacks but when they are at home, with family members, riding in a car, at work, at funerals, rescuing other drone victims, etc.

Many of the early objections to this new memo have focused on this warped and incredibly broad definition of "imminence". The ACLU's Jameel Jaffer told Isikoff that the memo "redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning". Law Professor Kevin Jon Heller called Jaffer's objection "an understatement", noting that the memo's understanding of "imminence" is "wildly overbroad" under international law.

Crucially, Heller points out what I noted above: once you accept the memo's reasoning - that the US is engaged in a global war, that the world is a battlefield, and the president has the power to assassinate any member of al-Qaida or associated forces - then there is no way coherent way to limit this power to places where capture is infeasible or to persons posing an "imminent" threat. The legal framework adopted by the memo means the president can kill anyone he claims is a member of al-Qaida regardless of where they are found or what they are doing.

quote:

This memo is not a judicial opinion. It was not written by anyone independent of the president. To the contrary, it was written by life-long partisan lackeys: lawyers whose careerist interests depend upon staying in the good graces of Obama and the Democrats, almost certainly Marty Lederman and David Barron. Treating this document as though it confers any authority on Obama is like treating the statements of one's lawyer as a judicial finding or jury verdict.

Indeed, recall the primary excuse used to shield Bush officials from prosecution for their crimes of torture and illegal eavesdropping: namely, they got Bush-appointed lawyers in the DOJ to say that their conduct was legal, and therefore, it should be treated as such. This tactic - getting partisan lawyers and underlings of the president to say that the president's conduct is legal - was appropriately treated with scorn when invoked by Bush officials to justify their radical programs. As Digby wrote about Bush officials who pointed to the OLC memos it got its lawyers to issue about torture and eavesdropping, such a practice amounts to:

"validating the idea that obscure Justice Department officials can be granted the authority to essentially immunize officials at all levels of the government, from the president down to the lowest field officer, by issuing a secret memo. This is a very important new development in western jurisprudence and one that surely requires more study and consideration. If Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan had known about this, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble."

Life-long Democratic Party lawyers are not going to oppose the terrorism policies of the president who appointed them. A president can always find underlings and political appointees to endorse whatever he wants to do. That's all this memo is: the by-product of obsequious lawyers telling their Party's leader that he is (of course) free to do exactly that which he wants to do, in exactly the same way that Bush got John Yoo to tell him that torture was not torture, and that even it if were, it was legal.

All of this is especially scary because even if you trust Obama not to abuse this power, it sets up a precedence for the Executive Branch to have this power in future Administrations. It's also a terrible policy because it legitimizes otherwise paranoid accusations against the government.
This should be an issue liberals, conservatives, tea-partiers, communists, etc. should be able to unite to fight against. Nobody wants the government to have this power.

Ccs fucked around with this message at Feb 6, 2013 around 00:52

# ? Feb 6, 2013 00:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2013 22:42

FISTS CURE WOMEN: Dec 18, 2003; Even today, my nipples still have the orange peel texture

I'm ok with this.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 00:45

Agro ver Haus doom: Jul 27, 2011; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Well at least Romney didn't win.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 00:45

GreenCard78: Apr 25, 2005; It's all in the game, yo.

Well hey, they got Anwar al-Awlaki and his son so why stop the party?

# ? Feb 6, 2013 00:47

Bleusilences: Jun 23, 2004; Be careful for what you wish for.

edit: Nevermind, wrong person.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 00:47

Hypha: Sep 13, 2008

Georgetown

What do you mean this isn't a Kyoon thread?

# ? Feb 6, 2013 00:48

HATE CURES TRANNYS: Aug 16, 2005; PUSSY ALL NIGHT!

Sounds good to me.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 00:51

Three-Phase: Aug 5, 2006; Four phases.

One-two-three-fucking-four phases.

Also, mods should be doing more of this custom title shit to maintain the funny. I don't mind the , but it reflects poorly on the forums.

This is really not something I expected from the Obama administration.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 00:52

Numeron: Mar 23, 2012; A whole new world in
the palm of my hand.

FISTS CURE WOMEN posted:

I'm ok with this.

I'm not. Everyone deserves a right to trial.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 00:53

Black Baby Goku: Apr 2, 2011

gently caress Obama

# ? Feb 6, 2013 00:54

Slightly Toasted: Feb 9, 2009

Numeron posted:

I'm not. Everyone deserves a right to trial.

Bzzzt, nope.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Feb 6, 2013 00:57

NoEyedSquareGuy: Mar 16, 2009; Just because Liquor's dead, doesn't mean you can just roll this bitch all over town with "The Freedoms."

Good thing I'm only a junior operational leader of al-Qaida.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 00:57

Ccs: Feb 25, 2011

Slightly Toasted posted:

Bzzzt, nope.

Why not? Especially if the constitution ensures their rights to that trial?

# ? Feb 6, 2013 00:58

Node: May 20, 2001

NoEyedSquareGuy posted:

Good thing I'm only a junior operational leader of al-Qaida.

Reported. Since your house isn't going to get droned at least Lowtax will lay down the banhammer. Enjoy your vacation, semi-terrorist.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 00:58

HATE CURES TRANNYS: Aug 16, 2005; PUSSY ALL NIGHT!

Ccs posted:

Why not? Especially if the constitution ensures their rights to that trial?

Trials are boring, drone strikes are kicking-rad.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:02

HondaRider271: Jul 19, 2007; it's always good to have more

I thought we killed Osama, are we still on this terrorism kick? Goddamn it, I told you motherfuckers not to vote for Romney.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:03

HiHo ChiRho: Oct 23, 2010; NEWSFLASH! MAN KILLS PUSSY WITH HIS COCK!

THANKS OBAMA.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:03

Marenghi: Oct 16, 2008

But doesn't this only relate to US citizens who are al-Qaida operatives outside of US soil. If they want a fair trial they shouldn't have moved to communist Europe or Islamist Afro-Asia.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:04

Cat Terrist: Nov 9, 2004; When I'm this close to you, I don't care about Asics.

Slightly Toasted posted:

Bzzzt, nope.

Can we bomb your house? After all you are a terrorist just because someone said so - Thence I guess you have no problem being executed without a trial

And that's EXACTLY how this works. See any problems yet?

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:04

The Bible: May 8, 2010

Slightly Toasted posted:

Bzzzt, nope.

So who does? And who decides who does and doesn't?

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:04

HATE CURES TRANNYS: Aug 16, 2005; PUSSY ALL NIGHT!

The Bible posted:

So who does? And who decides who does and doesn't?

Not terrorists and America.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:05

Neptr: Mar 1, 2011

We need to find a way to court martial the enemy combatant just before the missile strikes their beat down Toyota pickup. Maybe have the judge be the one who fires the ordinance.

Everyone has the right to a speedy trial.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:05

Zarin: Nov 11, 2008; Can't post for 20 days!

One of my co-workers showed me the Fox News version of this at work.

He and I don't agree on politics very often, but judging by his reaction to my reaction to the text of the actual document, we were in agreement on this.

The discussion then carried over to how extradition works, and we both came up short with an answer of how one American killing another American on non-American soil should/would actually be handled.

We were both in agreement that "droning them from the sky" was NOT an acceptable answer, however.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:06

The Bible: May 8, 2010

HATE CURES TRANNYS posted:

Not terrorists and America.

I think you haven't really thought this through. See, the trial is to determine if the person really is a terrorist. You're advocating just executing anyone who is accused of being a terrorist without really bothering to find out if it is true.

And sorry, even terrorists deserve a fair trial. It's a part of living in a modern country with compassionate and civil people. I love how people rage against terrorists for being bloodthirsty and evil, but then advocate just outright murdering them without a second though. You're just as bad as they are, morally.

You are literally advocating a witch hunt.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:07

Black Baby Goku: Apr 2, 2011

We will see who supports drones when the police is every city are using them (with force). loving idiots.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:08

GreenCard78: Apr 25, 2005; It's all in the game, yo.

/\ Saw this in the news today, you might like it, Virginia city bans the use of drones:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...resolution?lite

and also,

quote:

The FAA has issued permits to 358 public institutions � including 14 universities and colleges � to fly unmanned aircraft. Those permits are primarily for research and to monitor border activity. To date, the FAA has rejected requests by police departments who want to use them to survey crime-infested areas.

Neptr posted:

We need to find a way to court martial the enemy combatant just before the missile strikes their beat down Toyota pickup. Maybe have the judge be the one who fires the ordinance.

Everyone has the right to a speedy trial.

I think that's one of the social issues tackled in Judge Dredd.

GreenCard78 fucked around with this message at Feb 6, 2013 around 01:12

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:08

3 Tablets Daily: Jun 7, 2006

People get killed all the time when they resist arrest. This is just like sending in the swat team, except the swat team is a hellfire missile.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:08

Chamale: Jul 11, 2010; Men on the moon and men spinning around the earth and there's not no attention paid to earthly law and order.

The government can't assign someone a terrorist without a trial and then kill that person. The Bill of Rights is clear that everyone deserves a trial before being punished.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:08

HATE CURES TRANNYS: Aug 16, 2005; PUSSY ALL NIGHT!

The Bible posted:

I think you haven't really thought this through. See, the trial is to determine if the person really is a terrorist. You're advocating just executing anyone who is accused of being a terrorist without really bothering to find out if it is true.

You are literally advocating a witch hunt.

If you think of military intelligence as a whole bunch of jurors, and a general as a judge, you'll see there actually is a trial. So I don't see your point.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:08

Zarin: Nov 11, 2008; Can't post for 20 days!

The Bible posted:

You are literally advocating a witch hunt.

I took his post to be humorous.

Then again, maybe I am just having trouble taking somebody with that avatar seriously?

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:10

SpazmasterX: Jul 13, 2006; MORE ROBUST THAN EVER BEFORE

HATE CURES TRANNYS posted:

If you think of military intelligence as a whole bunch of jurors, and a general as a judge, you'll see there actually is a trial. So I don't see your point.

Nope, let's spend the time, money, and manpower capturing every enemy insurgent that's technically still a US citizen so we can get some more soldiers killed while we attempt to extradite some rear end in a top hat back to the states for his fair trial.

Because vaporizing him from the sky is far too easy, you see.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:13

The Bible: May 8, 2010

Chamale posted:

The government can't assign someone a terrorist without a trial and then kill that person.

Well, it seems they can, actually. And have done so several times. See: Collateral Murder video, Anwar al-Aulaqi

And for anyone who doesn't care about the Anwar case because "he was a terrorist", his 15 year old son died too.

Zarin posted:

I took his post to be humorous.

Then again, maybe I am just having trouble taking somebody with that avatar seriously?

No, I'm thinking you're right, I'm pretty sure he's joking. Poe's Law, I guess.

SpazmasterX posted:

Nope, let's spend the time, money, and manpower capturing every enemy insurgent that's technically still a US citizen so we can get some more soldiers killed while we attempt to extradite some rear end in a top hat back to the states for his fair trial.

Because vaporizing him from the sky is far too easy, you see.

Or hell, let's just get out of that region already. They clearly don't want us there, and we have no business being there. That way we'll save soldiers' lives and the lives of our "enemies". It's not like we just have to be invading a country at any given time.

The Bible fucked around with this message at Feb 6, 2013 around 01:15

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:13

Benminnn: Sep 28, 2002

SpazmasterX posted:

Nope, let's spend the time, money, and manpower capturing every enemy insurgent that's technically still a US citizen so we can get some more soldiers killed while we attempt to extradite some rear end in a top hat back to the states for his fair trial.

Because vaporizing him from the sky is far too easy, you see.

I think the thing you're missing is that you, right now, in your chair, could be killed legally by the government and there's nothing you can do about it. You're cool with that?

edit: I can't tell whose being sarcastic or not about this for some reason, I'm out.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:15

HATE CURES TRANNYS: Aug 16, 2005; PUSSY ALL NIGHT!

Benminnn posted:

I think the thing you're missing is that you, right now, in your chair, could be killed legally by the government and there's nothing you can do about it. You're cool with that?

He could not be a terrorist.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:16

HondaRider271: Jul 19, 2007; it's always good to have more

Benminnn posted:

I think the thing you're missing is that you, right now, in your chair, could be killed legally by the government and there's nothing you can do about it. You're cool with that?

edit: I can't tell whose being sarcastic or not about this for some reason, I'm out.

To be fair this is already true and has been for quite some time.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:16

Chamale: Jul 11, 2010; Men on the moon and men spinning around the earth and there's not no attention paid to earthly law and order.

SpazmasterX posted:

Nope, let's spend the time, money, and manpower capturing every enemy insurgent that's technically still a US citizen so we can get some more soldiers killed while we attempt to extradite some rear end in a top hat back to the states for his fair trial.

Because vaporizing him from the sky is far too easy, you see.

The government has the power to kill assholes, but the Constitution is clear that every rear end in a top hat has a right to defend himself in court. The President must show beyond any reasonable doubt that an alleged insurgent is guilty before killing him. This is Justice 101, and it's a power that clearly should not be extended to this degree.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:17

The Bible: May 8, 2010

Benminnn posted:

I think the thing you're missing is that you, right now, in your chair, could be killed legally by the government and there's nothing you can do about it. You're cool with that?

edit: I can't tell whose being sarcastic or not about this for some reason, I'm out.

No, US military intelligence is always right, so there is no chance someone innocent will be summarily executed without a trial.

It's scary how many Americans support execution without trial. That's some straight-up dictator poo poo. Whatever the hell happened to "Home of the Free"? That was one of those things that was supposed to separate us from nations that didn't respect basic human rights, and so many Americans are just so eager to throw it away. It's as if they support America being reduced to another third world shithole where people are treated like cattle while the leadership robs them of their wealth and labor.

The Bible fucked around with this message at Feb 6, 2013 around 01:20

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:18

SirDan3k: Jan 6, 2001; Trust me, you are taking this a lot more seriously then I am.

Benminnn posted:

I think the thing you're missing is that you, right now, in your chair, could be killed legally by the government and there's nothing you can do about it. You're cool with that?

So, the only thing different is the "legally" part.

I'm sure the whole "or An Associated Force" part won't get extended to the point where they can napalm college kids camping in a park and making stock brokers nervous through the vile act of existing.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:20

UberJew: Mar 11, 2003; They call it justice to restore a tyranny to power.

Looks like we're going to need a new dictionary.

The Bible posted:

Well, it seems they can, actually. And have done so several times. See: Collateral Murder video, Anwar al-Aulaqi

And for anyone who doesn't care about the Anwar case because "he was a terrorist", his 15 year old son died too.

Was killed in a second attack in fact, not even "just" collateral damage.

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2013 22:42

SpazmasterX: Jul 13, 2006; MORE ROBUST THAN EVER BEFORE

Any effort to actually capture some "US citizen" turned insurgent is basically going to be "Uhhhh capture alive if you can I guess. It's not exactly a problem if the target dies in the crossfire. In fact, then it's just an accident!

# ? Feb 6, 2013 01:27

«‹›17 »

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Executive Branch Memo institutionalizes right to kill US Citizens