5 ms·

I mean…it’s circumstantial? The reason these societal contracts hold weight is because people give them weight. Ultimately it’s up to the people to hold governm

I mean…it’s circumstantial? The reason these societal contracts hold weight is because people give them weight. Ultimately it’s up to the people to hold government accountable. Did the public care about possible implications of Awlaki? Probably very few. Did people care about Waco? A lot more did. US governmental bodies carry out extrajudicially killings of US citizen on a daily basis on the premise of perceived threat. Look, I’m no legal scholar. These are social contracts, ultimately what’s legal is what society deems legal. Do you have any sources documenting legal challenges against the administration’s memo?

yucky 4y ago
>US governmental bodies carry out extrajudicially killings of US citizen on a daily basis Not sure if your misquoting me is intentional or not, since it completely changes the meaning of what happened in this case. This was not a police shooting. This was not an in-the-moment decision, or a reaction on a battlefield. So I think you're not understanding what extrajudicial assassination means. You can read more about the Obama Kill List aka "The Disposition Matrix" by using Google and choosing your favorite source. But for the sake of this discussion, this list included people that the Obama Administration had decided needed to be assassinated rather than brought to justice (this part is key), some of them US citizens including Al-Awlaki. In fact, Al-Awlaki's father[1] who was not a US citizen, but a US educated government official in Yemen, found out that his son had been placed on this assassination list. He pleaded with the US Justice Department to bring charges against his son, so that he could have his son turn himself in. The US Government REFUSED to file charges against Anwar Al-Awlaki, since that would then require them to prove their case in court, which they didn't want to do. So please, stop trying to compare this to a police shooting, this was a targeted assassination of US Citizen who was on a hit list for 18 months before they finally killed him. That is an assassination by definition. [1] https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/935/Al-Aulaqi-v-Obama-et-al/ https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/935/Al-Aula...
- trevorboaconstr 4y ago
  Targeted killing and assassination are two different things in the eyes of the law. Please stop conflating the two. Like I said, I’m no legal scholar. This is what I’ve come across for legal opinion: The criteria set by the following, outlining the circumstances of legal targeted killing of US citizens, here: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1330&context=vlr https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a... In conjunction with the original memo arguing justification, here: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/second-circuit-foia-ruling-awlaki-olc-memo/65ac10d47e3cc031/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/second-circuit-foia-r... …seems convincing to me. As long as a certain criteria is met, extrajudicial targeted killings of US citizens is probably legal: “The practice of targeted killing can be used in a manner that is consistent with U.S. and international laws. Permissible targets will be of a military nature, and killing them will serve a military objective. No laws, international or domestic, prohibit the practice if it is carried out by a state against an enemy of that state actively engaged in an armed conflict against that state. When the target is a U.S. citizen, the U.S. Constitution demands certain additional procedures before the U.S. government may kill the target. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause dictates these procedures. The procedures ensure a just determination of the target's permissibility as a military matter and the subjective intent of the target not to avail himself of the further protections to which he is entitled as an American citizen. A neutral decisionmaker should balance the targeted citizen's life against the risk he poses. If the decision comes out against him, then the military may launch a strike.” Do you have an official release of this disposition matrix, AKA kill list? It seems it’s existence has been confirmed via leak. I don’t see any info about who exactly is/has been on it. “The process determining criteria for killing is not public…” Knowing about it is not very useful if you don’t know the criteria. It’s not very helpful at all, in fact, in determining legality here.
  - yucky 4y ago
    >Targeted killing and assassination are two different things in the eyes of the law. Please stop conflating the two. You're citing a memo written by the people who ordered the assassination. But we are a nation of laws, and there is no law that says the government can order your assassination without charging you with a crime, finding you guilty and sentencing you. Which at that point, makes it no longer an assassination but an execution. Without the judicial procedures to justify it, it's just an assassination with a memo written by the killers. >“The process determining criteria for killing is not public…” >Knowing about it is not very useful if you don’t know the criteria. It’s not very helpful at all, in fact, in determining legality here. No, the fact that the government doesn't make the criteria public is exactly how we know it isn't legal. There is no judicial process tied to it that accords rights to the accused. Therefore it's unconstitutional by definition.
- trevorboaconstr 4y ago
  “But in the case of a targeted killing, senior executive branch officials explicitly designate one U.S. citizen as a target and attempt to kill him specifically outside of a standard battle. The result is that the U.S. citizen needs to be on notice that he stands suspected of being a traitor or of committing some other crime. If he is given this information, he can make the choice either to surrender himself to the United States, stand trial, and possibly clear his name or to continue to fight and die with the enemies of the United States.” “Before the United States killed him, Al-Aulaqi should have been given notice that he was wanted for treason, or another crime, and that if he refused to return and stand trial, then he would be considered a military target. Functionally, A1-Aulaqi had notice that he was on a kill list. The media had been abuzz about killing him, and his father even filed an unsuccessful lawsuit on his behalf. Nonetheless, he did not return to the United States for trial.” Doesn’t sound like it’s the government’s responsibility to bring charges. It appears to be the individual’s responsibility to surrender.
  - yucky 4y ago
    >Before the United States killed him, Al-Aulaqi should have been given notice that he was wanted for treason, or another crime, and that if he refused to return and stand trial, then he would be considered a military target Yes, and in our legal system the government notifies you by filing charges. >Doesn’t sound like it’s the government’s responsibility to bring charges. It appears to be the individual’s responsibility to surrender. Surrender for...what exactly? Not court, he wasn't being charged so there is nothing to surrender to. That was literally the entire point. If the government thought he was guilty of something, then charge him and prove it in court. This is not some obscure idea, our entire judicial system is based on it.
    - trevorboaconstr 4y ago
      If, as per legal opinions, the target is not able to be apprehended given reasonable effort to do so, and evidence is presented as such, there is legal maneuvering to carry out a targeted killing-which is a military matter-, against a combatant. The legal opinion is very clear on this. Please give it a read. It’s very detailed and explicit. All your statements are covered.

yucky 4y ago

>US governmental bodies carry out extrajudicially killings of US citizen on a daily basis Not sure if your misquoting me is intentional or not, since it completely changes the meaning of what happened in this case. This was not a police shooting. This was not an in-the-moment decision, or a reaction on a battlefield. So I think you're not understanding what extrajudicial assassination means. You can read more about the Obama Kill List aka "The Disposition Matrix" by using Google and choosing your favorite source. But for the sake of this discussion, this list included people that the Obama Administration had decided needed to be assassinated rather than brought to justice (this part is key), some of them US citizens including Al-Awlaki. In fact, Al-Awlaki's father[1] who was not a US citizen, but a US educated government official in Yemen, found out that his son had been placed on this assassination list. He pleaded with the US Justice Department to bring charges against his son, so that he could have his son turn himself in. The US Government REFUSED to file charges against Anwar Al-Awlaki, since that would then require them to prove their case in court, which they didn't want to do. So please, stop trying to compare this to a police shooting, this was a targeted assassination of US Citizen who was on a hit list for 18 months before they finally killed him. That is an assassination by definition. [1] https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/935/Al-Aulaqi-v-Obama-et-al/ https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/935/Al-Aula...

trevorboaconstr 4y ago
Targeted killing and assassination are two different things in the eyes of the law. Please stop conflating the two. Like I said, I’m no legal scholar. This is what I’ve come across for legal opinion: The criteria set by the following, outlining the circumstances of legal targeted killing of US citizens, here: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1330&context=vlr https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a... In conjunction with the original memo arguing justification, here: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/second-circuit-foia-ruling-awlaki-olc-memo/65ac10d47e3cc031/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/second-circuit-foia-r... …seems convincing to me. As long as a certain criteria is met, extrajudicial targeted killings of US citizens is probably legal: “The practice of targeted killing can be used in a manner that is consistent with U.S. and international laws. Permissible targets will be of a military nature, and killing them will serve a military objective. No laws, international or domestic, prohibit the practice if it is carried out by a state against an enemy of that state actively engaged in an armed conflict against that state. When the target is a U.S. citizen, the U.S. Constitution demands certain additional procedures before the U.S. government may kill the target. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause dictates these procedures. The procedures ensure a just determination of the target's permissibility as a military matter and the subjective intent of the target not to avail himself of the further protections to which he is entitled as an American citizen. A neutral decisionmaker should balance the targeted citizen's life against the risk he poses. If the decision comes out against him, then the military may launch a strike.” Do you have an official release of this disposition matrix, AKA kill list? It seems it’s existence has been confirmed via leak. I don’t see any info about who exactly is/has been on it. “The process determining criteria for killing is not public…” Knowing about it is not very useful if you don’t know the criteria. It’s not very helpful at all, in fact, in determining legality here.
- yucky 4y ago
  >Targeted killing and assassination are two different things in the eyes of the law. Please stop conflating the two. You're citing a memo written by the people who ordered the assassination. But we are a nation of laws, and there is no law that says the government can order your assassination without charging you with a crime, finding you guilty and sentencing you. Which at that point, makes it no longer an assassination but an execution. Without the judicial procedures to justify it, it's just an assassination with a memo written by the killers. >“The process determining criteria for killing is not public…” >Knowing about it is not very useful if you don’t know the criteria. It’s not very helpful at all, in fact, in determining legality here. No, the fact that the government doesn't make the criteria public is exactly how we know it isn't legal. There is no judicial process tied to it that accords rights to the accused. Therefore it's unconstitutional by definition.
trevorboaconstr 4y ago
“But in the case of a targeted killing, senior executive branch officials explicitly designate one U.S. citizen as a target and attempt to kill him specifically outside of a standard battle. The result is that the U.S. citizen needs to be on notice that he stands suspected of being a traitor or of committing some other crime. If he is given this information, he can make the choice either to surrender himself to the United States, stand trial, and possibly clear his name or to continue to fight and die with the enemies of the United States.” “Before the United States killed him, Al-Aulaqi should have been given notice that he was wanted for treason, or another crime, and that if he refused to return and stand trial, then he would be considered a military target. Functionally, A1-Aulaqi had notice that he was on a kill list. The media had been abuzz about killing him, and his father even filed an unsuccessful lawsuit on his behalf. Nonetheless, he did not return to the United States for trial.” Doesn’t sound like it’s the government’s responsibility to bring charges. It appears to be the individual’s responsibility to surrender.
- yucky 4y ago
  >Before the United States killed him, Al-Aulaqi should have been given notice that he was wanted for treason, or another crime, and that if he refused to return and stand trial, then he would be considered a military target Yes, and in our legal system the government notifies you by filing charges. >Doesn’t sound like it’s the government’s responsibility to bring charges. It appears to be the individual’s responsibility to surrender. Surrender for...what exactly? Not court, he wasn't being charged so there is nothing to surrender to. That was literally the entire point. If the government thought he was guilty of something, then charge him and prove it in court. This is not some obscure idea, our entire judicial system is based on it.
  - trevorboaconstr 4y ago
    If, as per legal opinions, the target is not able to be apprehended given reasonable effort to do so, and evidence is presented as such, there is legal maneuvering to carry out a targeted killing-which is a military matter-, against a combatant. The legal opinion is very clear on this. Please give it a read. It’s very detailed and explicit. All your statements are covered.