25 ms·

Eric Holder said that it met the constitutional bar of "due process" for a Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen living abroad, to be assassinated by the executive bran

by jbapple 10y ago

Eric Holder said that it met the constitutional bar of "due process" for a Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen living abroad, to be assassinated by the executive branch as long as they talked about it a bit beforehand. I am doubtful that his investigation will result in meaningful change at Uber.

diminoten 10y ago
He may have said that, but it wasn't specifically his call to make.
- jbapple 10y ago
  Do you mean the the President could have told the CIA to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki even if Holder disapproved? If so, then we agree that President could have done that. Eric Holder could have spoken out against it in private, and, after the assassination was made public, in the media. He could have resigned in protest as other AGs before him did in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre. At the very least, he could have declined to tell the public that the President's actions meet the Constitutional bar of due process. Clearly, the stakes are much lower, here, unless Uber is also running a drone assassination campaign. But we have seen Holder before in a situation where his employer holds immense power over a departed stakeholder who has become a vocal critic, and we have seen his unwillingness to challenge power in that circumstance. I hope I am wrong, and I hope that Holder can make a meaningful difference in preventing Uber from continuing to treat its employees so poorly as it did in the blog post in question.
stuckagain 10y ago
People who are at war with the United States are not "assassinated" by that country. They just lose. Numerous people have lost their lives in this fashion.
rayiner 10y ago
It's not so clear cut as you make it out to be. In the phrase "due process," the word "due" literally means "what is warranted." I.e. "Due process" has always been understood as the idea that people are entitled to the amount of process warranted under the circumstances. It's about fact-specific inquiries, not bright-line rules. How much process is "warranted" when a U.S. Citizen wages war against the U.S. abroad and actively tries to evade any attempts at accountability through other means? Is military action against a U.S. citizen abroad never warranted? Maybe, but maybe not. I wouldn't have made the same call as Holder, but that's just me opinion, not an inexorable legal conclusion.
- jbapple 10y ago
  > It's not so clear cut as you make it out to be. I don't think I understand exactly what part of my post you disagree with. Did I misstate the facts? I understand that you think Holder may be justified in saying that the Constitution did not prevent the assassination. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot argue that I can tell you what was meant by those words originally, or how lawyers or judges would interpret those words today. I can say that in my view, a plain, humane, and just reading of those words does not include a panel, meeting in secret, without any representative of the accused present to defend him, deciding upon his execution. Further, I will say that I think it speaks to Holder's view of the authority granted to large institutions that he was willing to stand by this as justice.
  - jonathankoren 10y ago
    Not to make light of the situation, but I don't really think people on an active battlefield get a trial. It's just kind of the practicality of the matter. It's not like he was sitting at home in Denver. If I was on a battlefield allied with forces against the side the United States government was directly supporting, I can't say I'd be surprised if the United States government killed me.
    - jbapple 10y ago
      > Not to make light of the situation, but I don't really think people on an active battlefield get a trial. OK, but Anwar al-Awlaki was not on an active battlefield when he was assassinated.
      - cr1895 10y ago
        Neither was his son: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki
- Natsu 10y ago
  I honestly don't know the answer to that, but I'm disturbed by the precedent it sends when someone is individually targeted. It's really something I'm not very comfortable with under any circumstances. I mean, what sort of proof is required? Who holds them accountable? If I'm not mistaken, this guy's son & daughter have also been killed by drone strikes (one under Obama, another under Trump), though I don't think either children were individually targeted. Anyhow, I do not foresee myself becoming any more comfortable with that sort of thing under Trump.

by jbapple 10y ago

diminoten 10y ago

He may have said that, but it wasn't specifically his call to make.

jbapple 10y ago
Do you mean the the President could have told the CIA to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki even if Holder disapproved? If so, then we agree that President could have done that. Eric Holder could have spoken out against it in private, and, after the assassination was made public, in the media. He could have resigned in protest as other AGs before him did in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre. At the very least, he could have declined to tell the public that the President's actions meet the Constitutional bar of due process. Clearly, the stakes are much lower, here, unless Uber is also running a drone assassination campaign. But we have seen Holder before in a situation where his employer holds immense power over a departed stakeholder who has become a vocal critic, and we have seen his unwillingness to challenge power in that circumstance. I hope I am wrong, and I hope that Holder can make a meaningful difference in preventing Uber from continuing to treat its employees so poorly as it did in the blog post in question.

stuckagain 10y ago

People who are at war with the United States are not "assassinated" by that country. They just lose. Numerous people have lost their lives in this fashion.

rayiner 10y ago

It's not so clear cut as you make it out to be. In the phrase "due process," the word "due" literally means "what is warranted." I.e. "Due process" has always been understood as the idea that people are entitled to the amount of process warranted under the circumstances. It's about fact-specific inquiries, not bright-line rules. How much process is "warranted" when a U.S. Citizen wages war against the U.S. abroad and actively tries to evade any attempts at accountability through other means? Is military action against a U.S. citizen abroad never warranted? Maybe, but maybe not. I wouldn't have made the same call as Holder, but that's just me opinion, not an inexorable legal conclusion.

jbapple 10y ago
> It's not so clear cut as you make it out to be. I don't think I understand exactly what part of my post you disagree with. Did I misstate the facts? I understand that you think Holder may be justified in saying that the Constitution did not prevent the assassination. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot argue that I can tell you what was meant by those words originally, or how lawyers or judges would interpret those words today. I can say that in my view, a plain, humane, and just reading of those words does not include a panel, meeting in secret, without any representative of the accused present to defend him, deciding upon his execution. Further, I will say that I think it speaks to Holder's view of the authority granted to large institutions that he was willing to stand by this as justice.
- jonathankoren 10y ago
  Not to make light of the situation, but I don't really think people on an active battlefield get a trial. It's just kind of the practicality of the matter. It's not like he was sitting at home in Denver. If I was on a battlefield allied with forces against the side the United States government was directly supporting, I can't say I'd be surprised if the United States government killed me.
  - jbapple 10y ago
    > Not to make light of the situation, but I don't really think people on an active battlefield get a trial. OK, but Anwar al-Awlaki was not on an active battlefield when he was assassinated.
    - cr1895 10y ago
      Neither was his son: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki
Natsu 10y ago
I honestly don't know the answer to that, but I'm disturbed by the precedent it sends when someone is individually targeted. It's really something I'm not very comfortable with under any circumstances. I mean, what sort of proof is required? Who holds them accountable? If I'm not mistaken, this guy's son & daughter have also been killed by drone strikes (one under Obama, another under Trump), though I don't think either children were individually targeted. Anyhow, I do not foresee myself becoming any more comfortable with that sort of thing under Trump.