Skip to main content

View Diary: Targeted Killing: "A Unique and Extraordinary Case" (222 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Court's decision was common sense and totally (5+ / 0-)

    predictable.  The Courts do not make decisions about the rules of engagement for armed conflict, which is what the ACLU was essentially asking the Court to do.  There was no arguable legal basis for any result other than this.  I seriously doubt that there is a single federal judge in the country who would have ruled any differently than this.

    "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

    by seanwright on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 02:53:30 PM PST

    •  This is not "armed conflict" (36+ / 0-)

      This is targetted assasination well away from any battlefield. This is not a guy holding a gun confronting US soldiers. This is a US citizen who's been deemed a terrorist by the government based on "intelligence," and therefore condemned to extrajudicial capital punishment. This is not the way the US government is "supposed" to do things.  

      -5.12, -5.23

      We are men of action; lies do not become us.

      by ER Doc on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 03:14:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not accurate. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geekesque, VClib

        The case at hand involves drone strikes in lawless regions of Yemen.  The attacks on Al Awlaki are every bit as justified as the attacks on any other terrorist leader targeted in Pakistan or Yemen.  Now, whether those attacks are in accordance with international law and standards is a very debatable proposition, but it really is a "political question" meaning a question to be worked out among world leaders, rather than a legal quesion for the Supreme Court.

        "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

        by seanwright on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 03:25:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which world leaders should work this out? (8+ / 0-)

              I'm pretty sure that targetted assassination would be voted down, if anyone dared to bring it to the United Nations Security Council, or any other group presuming to follow the rule of law. Given that it really is the Congress's responsibilty to declare war. there is a clear question of whether we're deferring way the hell too much to the President's role as Commander-in-Chief as to how the war should be conducted.
              Given that, as I understand it,  extrajudicial assassination is in violation of several treaties having the full force of law in the US, it seems perfectly appropriate for the courts to consider whether the President is exceeding his legal authority. If the Predator drone strikes in Yemen are legal, how about in Mexico? How about "shoot-on-sight" authority for known drug kingpins on the streets of American cities?

          -5.12, -5.23

          We are men of action; lies do not become us.

          by ER Doc on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 04:17:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's not just drone attacks (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden, Akire, ER Doc

          He's on a capture or kill list; how he's killed is irrelevant.  The legal attack is about the fact that a US citizen is on a targeted assassination list in the first place.

          This isn't a political question; this is a due process, and therefore a constitutional, question.    Main question is, or at least should be, is the procedure that he has received through the executive branch sufficient to meet due process requirements?  Since he has not been given any opportunity to see any of the evidence against him, the answer should be no.

      •  Yeah, no attacks on American troops (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        seanwright

        anywhere near Yemen . . .

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 05:34:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ordinarily, "rules of engagement" (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden, Akire, mochajava13

          in a war zone refer to actual "engagements;" e.g. what to do when fired upon from a warehouse, or from a private dwelling, or from a mosque, etc. It's a stretch to say "engagement" includes intelligence of variable accuracy that a supposed Al Qaeda leder is staying in a particular house for the night. Given the dubious legal status of such attacks, together with the blowback we receive from the inevitable "collateral damage" when we attack the occasional wedding party instead of an Al Qaeda leader, it's past time for an impartial review of the appropriateness of such actions.

          -5.12, -5.23

          We are men of action; lies do not become us.

          by ER Doc on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 06:14:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Neither common nor sense. (12+ / 0-)

      Ordering the murder of an American citizen, without trial, is beyond the Constitutional powers of any official.

      If he is a military combatant, order his capture. Try him. Convict him. Then execute him.

      If he isn't, then Obama and the rest involved in this belong in cells awaiting trials of their own.

      neca politicos omnes; deus nullos agnoscet.

      by khereva on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 03:56:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, I find the notion of authorizing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geekesque, Jeffrey Kohan

        the use of lethal force against terrorists operating in lawless regions of the world LESS offensive than the death penalty, which I oppose.

        "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

        by seanwright on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 04:29:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's insane. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden, JVolvo, Akire, poxonyou

          That's "get the butterfly net" territory.

          neca politicos omnes; deus nullos agnoscet.

          by khereva on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 04:45:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not insane. It's the product of deeply (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geekesque, gardnerjf

            considered ethical standards. In my opinion, it is justifiable for a government to use lethal force to prevent individuals from killing other people if there are no other means for preventing such killing.  On the other hand, it is not justifiable for a government to kill individuals who have already been rendered harmless through capture. To me what is crazy is someone who wets his pants over the former and offers the latter as a preferable option.

            "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

            by seanwright on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 04:55:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  How do you know that he is guilty? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              neroden, Akire, khereva

              This is not about this particular individual; it is about the procedures being used to attempt to execute him.  There is nothing stopping the government from doing the exact same thing to another person that it deems a terrorist.  Given the fact that so many in Guantanamo were not actually terrorists (and some were children when then were picked up), I think this is a power our government should not have.

            •  It's utterly ridiculous. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              neroden, Akire, mochajava13

              God forbid he, or some future President, suddenly decides you are a threat to the nation.

              He'll order your murder, and no official will so much as open their mouths.

              neca politicos omnes; deus nullos agnoscet.

              by khereva on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 08:22:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  You only kill people if they DON'T have trials? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Akire

          This is a very bizarre point of view.  It's only OK for the government to kill people if they DON'T give them fair trials first?

          You realize this sets a precedent.  The next President could, and probably will, order the assassination of any American citizen anywhere, claim that that citizen is a "terrorist", and claim that the evidence of this is too secret to be shown in court.  That's what Obama did with al-Aulaqi.

          If this were a civilized country, we would charge al-Aulaqi with terrorism in court, provide prima facie evidence of the case in court, the court would issue a warrant for his arrest, we would hand that to Interpol and request extradition, and then we would go out and try to capture him (and if he shot at US troops while we did that, then we could kill him, yes.)

          But this isn't a civilized country, it's evidently a brutal dictatorship where the dictator issues kill orders.

          Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

          by neroden on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 10:04:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Rah Rah Goooooo Obama! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Akire, Seamus D, NC Blue, enhydra lutris

      Is there nothing his supporters (is that phrase still ok?) will not rationalize into a good thing?  Unfuckingbelievable.

      The Republican motto: "There's been a lot of progress in this country over the last 75 years, and we've been against all of it." ~ Hillbilly Dem's 78-yo Dad

      by JVolvo on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 05:34:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So all we have to do to kill a citizen is declare (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, Akire, mochajava13, KingCranky

      their zip code an "armed conflict area".

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site