Skip to main content

View Diary: Eugene Robinson on Assassination by Remote Control (75 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But that's not what your diary was about. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster

    Your diary specifically denies the right of the United States government to kill any US citizen abroad.

    During World War II we killed enemy soldiers without regard to citizenship.  Sometimes they were US citizens.  We did this because there was a declaration of war.  Now we have an AUMF, whatever one thinks of it, and I don't understand what's different.  

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 04:32:15 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  and thats why, as a matter of US law, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rich in PA

      the strikes are clearly legal.  if people want them ended, their recourse is to politics, not the courts.

      •  not necessarily (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau

        you are expanding Hamdan beyond where SCOTUS took it, and even if that means AUMF functions as a declaration of war, then our actions would still be bound by international convention and treaties, and the person who is an expert on such matters with whom I spoke AFTER Hamdan argued that such actions were still not legal

        "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

        by teacherken on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 04:53:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, I think Hamdan is squarely on point. (0+ / 0-)

          It tells us that the AUMF triggers the war powers and grants the President the power to wage war including all the incidents thereto (which is how they held that the President had the power to detain).

          The international law angle is interesting, especially for those of us that are outside looking in to the community.  A few thoughts:

          - The actions have to be legal under international law as construed by US courts.

          - That said, this is one of those odd areas that are non-justiciable legal questions.  A court almost certainly won't interpose itself between the President and battlefield operations, so there probably won't.

          - I'm a small-d democrat, so my view is that we are bound exclusively by those treaties which we have ratified.  Intl law jurists, on the other hand, treat all manner of things that aren't subject to the democratic process - like opinions of the ICRC, opinions of jurists and professors, UN Gen Assembly resolutions - as binding.  This strikes me as deeply undemocratic.  What I think is oddest of all is the lack of meta analysis in international law.  What is it, in what sense can it be seen as "law," how is it consistent with democracy and how it can be legitimate in the absence of democratic ratification, etc.  I haven't read too much international law, but I've rarely come across much that gets to these questions.  (that's not to say it's not out there, though)

    •  are you directing this to me? eom (0+ / 0-)

      "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

      by teacherken on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 04:52:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My apologies- I had a mental slip... (0+ / 0-)

        ...and thought Simplify was the diarist.  

        You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

        by Rich in PA on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 04:58:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site