14 ms·

Someone Just Leaked Obama's Rules for Assassinating American Citizens

225 points by erichocean 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
DigitalJack 14y ago
Just curious...do people usually title their white papers with the words "White Paper"?
- bobbles 14y ago
  Every white paper I've ever seen has the words white paper in the title.. but I don't think its expected, just a convention some organisations use
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  Historically, a White Paper is an informal position paper, whereas a Green Paper is a request for comment.
ghshephard 14y ago
Sometimes you have to kill people. One hopes that, as a nation of laws, the United States does so within reasonable constraints and at the appropriate time, and for the appropriate reasons. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us/boy-is-safe-after-alabama-hostage-standoff.html?hp http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us/boy-is-safe-after-alaba... for a tragic example today. I've skimmed through the entire document - it spends a lot of time talking about things that must be tried prior to these targeted killings - including multiple references to the fourth and fifth amendments of the constitution (Unreasonable Seizures, Due Process) There doesn't seem any reason why this document shouldn't be made public. Seems pretty much reasonable (if somewhat overly legalistic for this layperson to totally follow)
- grecy 14y ago
  I'm not sure what's scarier here; 1. That the US willingly kills it's own citizens without trial or 2. That you found a way to justify it and you're OK with it. What a crazy, crazy place.
  - melvinmt 14y ago
    Imagine a bank robber killing 5 people and holding 20 people hostage. As soon as he takes one step outside the police will shoot him on sight, WITHOUT any trial. It's the same thing basically.
    - dobbsbob 14y ago
      It's not the same thing They're targeting these guys for assasination for things they might do, or are suspected of doing in the past. It's not like they catch them in the actual act of committing terrorism. So to satisfy your Strawman it would be the equivalent of finding a bank robber months after the robbery inside his house, and the police blowing it up with his family inside to get him. I don't think that would fly in any reasonable society Edit: Interestingly here is a RL example that happened today, terrorists caught robbing banks, beaten by the cops then mugshots digitally altered so nobody would see the wounds http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/04/greece-police-local-terrorist-arrests http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/04/greece-police-lo...
    - nilved 14y ago
      The policemen would be guilty of murder in any reasonable society.
      - laurent123456 14y ago
        I hope not, if the family of any criminal out there could get policemen jailed for doing their job, there soon won't be much policemen left.
        gridaphobe 14y ago
        A policeman's job is to enforce the law, not kill criminals. In this case that means arresting the bank robber so he can be brought to trial. If the bank robber comes out of the bank "guns blazing" then the police are certainly justified to shoot him as a matter of self-defense. If, however, the bank robber steps out unarmed and is shot and killed, the family should have the right to bring a wrongful death suit (or something, IANAL) against the police officers in question.
- nilved 14y ago
  > Sometimes you have to kill people. This is not true.
  - orionblastar 14y ago
    This is what the George W. Bush Administration believed and the masses of the majority of the Internet were in an uproar over it. Why has it changed now?
    - alaskamiller 14y ago
      We got used to it. Give it a few more generations and we will completely forgot what it was like pre-9/11. In 7 year more years ask any 18 year old what their world view is and I imagine it would be completely detached from the reality we grew up with. So it is. Obama owes Bush Admin a great debt for the expanded executive powers over the years. A lot of Obama supporters back in 2008 had an erroneous belief that once in office Obama would return the balance of power, instead he opted to protect it as well as not pursue prosecution of acts of torture from the previous administration. Maybe that's just the kind of big boy pants decisions that need to be made for the sake "national security" or maybe it's just the leeway required to operate in a post-9/11 world. Who knows, I'm just a computer nerd, not a poliwonk. And if we're going to be fantasy quarterbacking maybe at the end of 2016 Obama will leave the office emancipating every inch that were taken in the past two decades, decriminalize, and fully end the global war on terror. That's some Abraham Lincoln level stuff right there.
  - tokenadult 14y ago
    > > Sometimes you have to kill people. > This is not true. The position that one must never kill someone else is certainly a defensible position, defended over the centuries by many honorable people. I respect that position. But, even though I have largely pacifist ancestors, I think as a father of a daughter that if the Taliban tried to set up their women-oppressing rule anywhere my daughter might have occasion to live or work, I would oppose them by all means necessary, up to and including lethal force. That's not because forcing women to be covered from head to toe when they go out of their homes is itself a capital crime, but because some Taliban fellow-travelers also commit capital crimes like murdering women who try to teach mothers how to vaccinate their children to keep the children from dying from infectious diseases. I would not be ashamed to kill a baby-killer or woman-murderer. AFTER EDIT: I will now take time to give a careful lawyer's read to the document (white paper) linked to from the blog post submitted here. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_W...
- aqme28 14y ago
  It doesn't matter how many times it mentions the fourth and fifth amendments if these powers of the executive branch are checked only by the executive branch. There's nothing actually stopping them from overriding the fourth or fifth amendment unless there is public or judicial oversight. And if you give someone power, they will eventually use it for an unintended purpose.
- adventured 14y ago
  Yet somehow America managed to survive two centuries without the desperate need to assassinate its own people being enshrined into law. Terrorism is not some new tactic that calls for a radical change in legal powers. These laws are nothing but an extreme power grab.
iwwr 14y ago
This unchecked expansion of executive power is happening all over the world. Enabled by technology, but also lack of public outrage, soft, welfarish* dictatorships are in the works. Outwardly, it looks democratic, but the democratic principle rests on a limitation of power. Currently, there is no limit, so long as the right language and people are targeted (whistle-blowers, traitors and ultimately, "terrorists"). The public is not yet aware of the danger and by the time they are it may be too late. *In a "guns and butter" sort of way
- javert 14y ago
  Outwardly, it looks democratic, but the democratic principle rests on a limitation of power. No, democracy is unlimited power by the majority. A constitutional republic is a system that allows the majority to exercise power within a restricted scope. EDIT: I completely agree with your point, though. It probably _is_ too late, but for it to not be too late, people have to learn what's what. And for that to happen, people need to understand what a democracy is and why it's not the right solution.
  - baddox 14y ago
    The distinction between a democracy and a constitutional republic is not as real as you make it sound. The only difference is that the constitutional republic has an old piece of paper sitting in a museum somewhere. As we all know, paper has no physical power, so the supposed restrictions on government power still must be enforced (either by a willing government, while that lasts, or an armed populace).
    - javert 14y ago
      No, it _is_ fully as real as I make it sound, but it is an _intellectual_ distinction. People who would like the government to have arbitrary powers argue that the difference isn't really real, and it's important to counter that. The only difference is that the constitutional republic has an old piece of paper sitting in a museum somewhere. No, the specific contents of that piece of paper also matter. Not every constitution establishs a constitutional republic, or a good one. As we all know, paper has no physical power, so the supposed restrictions on government power still must be enforced (either by a willing government, while that lasts, or an armed populace). I agree here, and this is the tricky part. Hopefully more people will come to realize that while they may be in the majority on some issue for some window of time, overall, they need protection from arbitrary governmental power.
brianlovin 14y ago
The title of this is really, really misleading. The first paragraph: This white paper sets forth a legal framework for the...use [of] lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against an American citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida
- logn 14y ago
  Well if this justification is somehow valid for senior al-Qaida members, it would hold for senior al-Shabaab members, senior Zetas in Mexico, senior Capone members, senior Bloods and Crips, senior LulzSec and Anon, etc. Then you apply the logic which hinges on it being a foreign country and parallel that to a condition in our own country and it gets ugly. After reading this whole memo, I actually see very little about geography or why this wouldn't be legal in the US. The bottom of page 4 and top of 5 seem to actually justify executions within our borders.
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    The difference is spelled out very clearly in the document. The United States is in a state of congressionally approved armed conflict with Al Quaida. Where they not in a state of armed conflict, then there would be no legal basis. The consequences of going to war, is that the executive (President, acting as Command in Chief of the armed forces) is authorized to kill the enemy without judicial review.
- cskau 14y ago
  > Assassinating American Citizens > lethal force [..] against an American citizen Wherein lies the difference?
  - saraid216 14y ago
    > who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida Reading comprehension, mostly.
redthrowaway 14y ago
You know what? Seems reasonable. An American citizenship should not be considered a writ of special treatment for a terrorist. If you're going to say that terrorists can be killed without judicial overview, which I think you have to, then you can't say that doesn't apply to those terrorists who happen to be American.
- OzzyB 14y ago
  Congratulations, you're a Facist.
  - revscat 14y ago
    Downvote the parent if you must, but it is not untrue. A defining characteristic of fascism is unchecked executive power, and this is the case here. There are no checks and balances here. The US intelligence apparatus has justified killing its own citizens without judicial or legislative oversight, at the sole discretion of the executive. As uncomfortable as it may be to point out, that is fascism.
    - gfodor 14y ago
      No, actually, that's not what facism means. Facism is a specific type of authoritative power structure almost always involving mass indoctrination of citizens into forming a unified movement via heavy nationalistic propaganda themed around a "vitalization" or "rebirth" of the nation state. In other words, authoritative governments indiscriminately killing people, while not good, is not a defining measure of fascism. In more broad terms, "things that I think are evil" are not either.
      - rhizome 14y ago
        All fascisms involve the identification and elimination of undesireables. Power is the method by which that is accomplished, and nationalism is only a symptom of this force in operation.
        14y ago
orionblastar 14y ago
I am just wondering but can people in Occupy Wall Street be targeted for assassination just as well as as a 'potential terrorist' in a foreign nation who happens to be a US citizen? If so we may be seeing a new form of US Government. BTW I thought President Jimmy Carter made assassinations illegal when he was President? Has that law been lifted?
- jowiar 14y ago
  Read the paper. The issue is not "potential terrorist" but rather swearing allegiance to Al Qaida, between whom and the United States there exists a present state of armed conflict. The US is not in a state of armed conflict with OWS. Also note that the application here is with regard to US citizens outside the US - picture someone training terrorists in a cave in Afghanistan, not someone camping on the streets of New York.
  - obstacle1 14y ago
    The paper starts off dealing specifically with high-level Al-Qa'ida operatives. However around page 4 or 5 the language changes to "and associated forces". That definition is too broad to be meaningful, which is a bit creepy.
    - jowiar 14y ago
      Reading the original 2001 AUMF explains where this language comes from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milita...
      - obstacle1 14y ago
        It doesn't explain anything. In fact it is even broader than this whitepaper: >the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons Hamlily v. Obama (2009) crystallizes the legal interpretation of the phrase a bit. Some key points: >The key inquiry, then, is not necessarily whether one self-identifies as a member of the organization (although this could be relevant in some cases), but whether the individual functions or participates within or under the command structure of the organization >The Court also concludes that the authority claimed by the government to detain those who were "part of ... Taliban or al Qaida forces" is consistent with the law of war >the government has the authority to detain members of "associated forces" as long as those forces would be considered co-belligerents under the law of war But note that Hamlily applies to detention and not execution. And in this execution whitepaper, it clearly states that the definition of associated forces "includes a group that would qualify as a co-belligerent under the laws of war". The phrase includes leaves a lot of room for the term "associated forces" to apply to other things. But anyway, IANAL. Link to Hamlily v. Obama (PDF): http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=15512898181635760339&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=MpUQUaXcF82ayQGAyoGYDw&ved=0CC4QgAMoADAA http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=15512898181635760... Link to AUMF (PDF): http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Authorization-for-Use-of-Military-Force-2001.pdf http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Author...
matmann2001 14y ago
Unfortunate automatic URL generation.
dkokelley 14y ago
Without reading the memo (only the linked article), wouldn't top Al Qa'ida operatives be classified as traitors and enemies of the state? (Maybe that's the legal angle expressed in the memo.) Within the country's borders, the government kills its citizens all of the time when the judgement is made that the suspect represents and immediate threat to the safety and well-being of others (see: hostage situations and police shootouts). Otherwise, the state's decision to end someone's life is a long and arduous process filled with courts and laws and appeals (and rightly so!).
drcube 14y ago
This isn't the outrage. The AUMF, which fairly elected US legislators enacted, and this white paper simply attempts to interpret, is. What's it been, 11 years now? We've always been at war with Oceania.
ck2 14y ago
I'm curious if people actually have more of a problem with this than invading Iraq which caused the death of thousands if not millions of innocents. Now history is being rewritten that Iraq was okay. Why are American citizens more important than thousands of innocent Iraqis? We should be protesting war in all forms, not just assassinations. But we're going to have enough problems domestically in a few years with drones everywhere.
- bcoates 14y ago
  I can think of two big reasons: Invading Iraq was done after an enormous amount of public debate, with the broad approval of Congress, the UN, etc. It may not have ever been the right decision but it was unambiguously "okay" from a following the rules in letter and spirit sense. These assassinations are being done in secret by a president who claims he doesn't have to explain himself to anyone. There isn't a ton of upside in invading a country, compared to the amount of effort and oversight involved. There are easier ways to funnel money to the Military Industrial Complex or distract from domestic political shame. The only real upside is ideological, either rightly or wrongly you think it's a good idea for whatever faction you align yourself with. But assassination of the local population is so very useful. It's a Dremel that a bad leader can use as a half-ass solution to any problem. For the kind of person who would aspire to be President, the logic of assassination is so clear that you don't even have to be paranoid: "That person is an inconvenience to me. I have the power to kill him. Kill him."
  - kstenson 14y ago
    The Iraq did not have approval of the UN.
    - bad_user 14y ago
      US didn't get approval from NATO either. I remember Germany and France being in strong opposition. The US basically gave them the finger and invaded Iraq anyway. And yet, here we are years later, with absolutely no evidence of WMDs discovered. And of course, everybody knew that the rationale given for invading Iraq was pure bullshit, you would have to be an idiot to not see it.
untog 14y ago
Is it really that fair to describe this as "Obama's rules"? They were prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel, after all. In any case, good to see this out there- it appears that the New York Times brought a court case to release these papers but were unsuccessful.
- yozmsn 14y ago
  Same way Bush owns the Guantanamo thing
- caseysoftware 14y ago
  They were written by officials of the Obama Administration for policies established and enacted by the Obama Administration and used to evaluate decisions the Obama Administration is making. It seems quite logical to call them "Obama's" whether they are rules or justifications..
jkoschei 14y ago
Best. Permalink. Ever.
- brokentone 14y ago
  In case they change it: "http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas...
coloneltcb 14y ago
This is really a biased source. Reason.com has a clear agenda
smiley1121 14y ago
The president is black. I don't see how this this story is relevant.
rtpg 14y ago
Can someone explain to me how citizenship comes into play for any of these things? I was always under the impression that non-citizens also had basic rights.
ahmadss 14y ago
Here's a response from the ACLU - http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/justice-departments-white-paper-targeted-killing http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/justice-departmen...
rhizome 14y ago
Good thing all that energy has been put into preserving the 2nd Amendment.
conductr 14y ago
nice slug, someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass
tokenadult 14y ago
The full text of the purported Justice Department white paper mentioned in the submitted blog post: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_W...
revelation 14y ago
These are not "rules", these are justifications should the political fallout be of the atomic type. Rules is a horrible euphemism for this absurdity, it implies that there is someone to enforce these rules, which is what is so conspicuously absent from the picture here.
superkuh 14y ago
This memo spends the entire time talking about the 'evil' al-qa'ida and how even if a US citizen joins them then legally they should get to kill them. It goes into deep detail about this scenario for a number of pages. But it skips over, in 5 lines at the very beginning, that it also applies to anyone they arbitrarily say are associated with al-qa'ida. No details about that. The important issue isn't the legal justification of some mythical US al-qa'ida as this document tries to stress. It's about the fact that they decide who is an 'associated group' they can also kill and that decision is secret and arbitrary.
logn 14y ago
Nice to read a treatise on how the Fourth Amendment doesn't prohibit executing citizens without trial. Neither does the First Amendment. The Fourth is about "searches and seizures". That it applies to taking possession of someone's life so as to extinguish it is a pretty twisted premise.
thisrod 14y ago
Let's turn this around. Suppose that an American citizen believes they're on the list, and the president is plotting to kill them. In what circumstances should it be legal for them to assassinate the president? The president is supposed to be just another citizen: one who's very certainly plotting to kill Americans. It's curious how few people apply his reasoning to his own case. Do people believe in some kind of divine right of presidents?
etherael 14y ago
"Because I feel like it" would be less vague than this travesty.
joshfraser 14y ago
The strength of your principles is only tested at the extremes. I hate Westboro Baptist Church, but I'll support their right to say what they want, because that's how much I believe in free speech. And even terrorists deserve the right to a speedy and public trial if they're American. It's part of our constitution, something we're supposed to stand for as a country. It even makes me sad the way we handled the whole Osama Bin Laden assassination. How much of a bigger statement would it have made to the world if we had pulled him out and made him sit trial for his crimes? What happened to our principles that we used to care so much about?
- mc32 14y ago
  W/re WBC, I think while they have a right to hold views, express them, share them, I do not think, and others have agreed[1], that they have the right to disrupt other people's proceedings (funerals) as part of their right to free expression. [1] http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/16/3870092/appeals-court-delivers-westboro.html http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/16/3870092/appeals-court-d...
- camus 14y ago
  freespeech is not about going to someone's funeral and spiting on his grave yelling he is going to HELL.
charonn0 14y ago
I think I see a problem with the reasoning on the very first page (second para.): > The President has authority to respond to the imminent threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, arising from his constitutional responsibility to protect the country, the inherent right of the United States to national self defense under international law, Congress's authorization of the use of all necessary and appropriate military force against this enemy, and the existence of an armed conflict with al-Qa'ida under international law. (emphasis mine.) < An armed conflict under international law is a war; and war is a power of nation states, not non-governmental actors (NGAs) no matter how violent. Not very many years ago the US began imprisoning non-Citizens on the justification that al Qaida (an NGA) was ineligible for protection by the Geneva, Hague, and other conventions, and as such the prisoners were neither criminal nor military defendants but prisoners of the President. Now they are arguing that war does exist, permitting the US government to act violently against a US Citizen despite the Constitutional prohibition against punishment without trial. The administration's actions are inconsistent: despite a state of war now supposedly existing, prisoners of war still are not afforded the rights guaranteed to PoWs; despite the writ of habeas corpus not being suspended, US Citizens may be summarily executed at the order of the President.
ghshephard 14y ago
For everybody commenting on this article, please take 45 minutes to read the document. It applies only to the following scenario: 1) The US Citizen has to be a Sr. Operational Leader of al-Qa'ida. 2) An informed high level official of the US Government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of Violent Attack against the United States. 3) Capture is infeasible, and the United states continues to monitor whether capture is feasible. 4) The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles. This Document does not consider American Citizens who are not Sr. Operational Leaders of al-Qa'ida. If you are just an American Citizen who has become a low-level Al-Qa'ida terrorist who is planning imminent attacks on the United States, that the government has discovered, and they are unable to capture you, this document does NOT provide justification to target you. It's a dense document, and hard to read with all that NBC NEWS watermarking, but take the time to read it before commenting on it.
- rgrieselhuber 14y ago
  It still violates due process.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    It might, but it doesn't clearly do so. Due process does not mean a trial. It means what is reasonable under the circumstances. The length of the paper tries to show that there are no reasonable alternatives in the case capture is not feasible. It's a non trivial argument.
    - rgrieselhuber 14y ago
      Yes it does, because the protections provided by the constitution allow for the deprivation of life, liberty, property, etc. in accordance with the "due process of law." There is no law here. Only an arbitrary, internal memo.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        Pursuant to the AUMF.
ryanmarsh 14y ago
When you consider that humans have been on the earth some 150,000 - 200,000 years it's interesting that only in the last heartbeat of humanity's existence (4,000 or so) did we decide en masse to grant a monopoly on the use of deadly force to someone else, namely bureaucrats.
logn 14y ago
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/impeach-president-obama-unconstitutional-execution-united-states-citizens/Rdq942HF https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/impeach-president-...
olefoo 14y ago
The following questions come to mind. 1. What is "an informed, high-level official of the US government"; is it the President only, or does it include Cabinet Members? Is it restricted to political appointees, or does it extend into civil service roles as well? 2. "imminent threat of violent attack against the United States" sounds like a definition of a legal standard, what are the elements of such a standard and would the mere possession of weaponry sufficient to carry out such an attack meet it? 3. The phrase "senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force" is used repeatedly in the document; what qualities put one in the category of an "associated force"? Would it be plausible to say that Wikileaks could be described as an associated force with al Qa'ida? Could the Syrian government be so described? What are the strictures here? 4. Given that several known killings of American citizens seem on the face of it to violate the guidelines of this document; most notably the death of Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi it would behoove the government to explain the apparent contradiction. Or if the definition of "operational leader of al-Qa'ida" has been watered down to "military aged male"; to state that publicly. There is no question that dealing with non-state paramilitary actors undermines the nation state paradigm that the existing law of war assumes and that there are a number of edge cases where it is hard to determine whether a given individual should be treated as a combatant or as a criminal; however we as a nation and as a society cannot afford to let our leaders become mere killers without restraint; no matter how heinous the opposition.
- phaus 14y ago
  It seems doubtful that wiki leaks would qualify, Assange is still breathing. Also, Assad is practically begging to be assassinated( not saying it should be the US that does it), I don't know why anyone would be sympathetic to someone like him. Still, he doesn't really seemed to be linked to terrorism, and he's not really a threat to anyone outside of Syria, so I doubt he'd qualify either.
  - olefoo 14y ago
    The indictment against Bradley Manning states that he is being charged with knowingly giving information to the enemy. Since he gave the cables to Wikileaks, is Wikileaks "the enemy"? It's a valid question.
hakaaaaak 14y ago
If the war is over, then assassination would seem to be possible breach of the Geneva convention. If the war isn't over, then when will it be over? And is it even legitimate? The U.S. declared war on the concept "Terrorism" during Bush Jr's presidency, not on specific terrorists or al-Qa'ida. The U.S. also declared a war on "drugs" during the Reagan years. Though I'm in support of both "wars" because I'm in favor of the well-being and defense of the U.S. people, I don't think Congress or the president should have a right to declare war on something that cannot end, i.e. cannot terminate via treaty, surrender/capitulation, complete destruction, or victory. I am a little concerned that we are declaring that it is ok to kill our own citizens without due trial, although I understand there are conditions.
- camus 14y ago
  well the point you are missing is , it takes place outside a war context. AlQaida is not the army of afghanistan , in fact most of its members are saudis , egyptians or from yemen. So the Geneva convention "doesnt apply" , that's the why of the enemy combattant status and all that illegal crap made legal.
allingeek 14y ago
I had to giggle when I took a look at the URL, "someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass." Which made me wonder if this, rather lengthy, but clearly truncated URL was hand chosen. Either way makes you think about more intelligent filters for URL generators.
mens_rea 14y ago
I love that this title is so unbiased and doesn't at all blow the document out of proportion or make it appear more sinister than it actually is. Thank you for not misleading readers with your title in order to get views and points.
cpursley 14y ago
This power grab will only continue as governments lose their grip on the digital realm - mainly their ability to keep secrets and collect taxes. Real crypto currencies and encrypted communications will change human organization and governments will fight back with everything they have. These new laws over the past several years have been to address the above - they have nothing to do with 'terrorism' - cyber or otherwise. Government's only effective role is to maintain its power. Everything thing else is secondary.
mvid 14y ago
How long until someone makes a flow chart out of this?

225 points by erichocean 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

DigitalJack 14y ago

Just curious...do people usually title their white papers with the words "White Paper"?

bobbles 14y ago
Every white paper I've ever seen has the words white paper in the title.. but I don't think its expected, just a convention some organisations use
anigbrowl 14y ago
Historically, a White Paper is an informal position paper, whereas a Green Paper is a request for comment.

ghshephard 14y ago

Sometimes you have to kill people. One hopes that, as a nation of laws, the United States does so within reasonable constraints and at the appropriate time, and for the appropriate reasons. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us/boy-is-safe-after-alabama-hostage-standoff.html?hp http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us/boy-is-safe-after-alaba... for a tragic example today. I've skimmed through the entire document - it spends a lot of time talking about things that must be tried prior to these targeted killings - including multiple references to the fourth and fifth amendments of the constitution (Unreasonable Seizures, Due Process) There doesn't seem any reason why this document shouldn't be made public. Seems pretty much reasonable (if somewhat overly legalistic for this layperson to totally follow)

grecy 14y ago
I'm not sure what's scarier here; 1. That the US willingly kills it's own citizens without trial or 2. That you found a way to justify it and you're OK with it. What a crazy, crazy place.
- melvinmt 14y ago
  Imagine a bank robber killing 5 people and holding 20 people hostage. As soon as he takes one step outside the police will shoot him on sight, WITHOUT any trial. It's the same thing basically.
  - dobbsbob 14y ago
    It's not the same thing They're targeting these guys for assasination for things they might do, or are suspected of doing in the past. It's not like they catch them in the actual act of committing terrorism. So to satisfy your Strawman it would be the equivalent of finding a bank robber months after the robbery inside his house, and the police blowing it up with his family inside to get him. I don't think that would fly in any reasonable society Edit: Interestingly here is a RL example that happened today, terrorists caught robbing banks, beaten by the cops then mugshots digitally altered so nobody would see the wounds http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/04/greece-police-local-terrorist-arrests http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/04/greece-police-lo...
  - nilved 14y ago
    The policemen would be guilty of murder in any reasonable society.
    - laurent123456 14y ago
      I hope not, if the family of any criminal out there could get policemen jailed for doing their job, there soon won't be much policemen left.
      - gridaphobe 14y ago
        A policeman's job is to enforce the law, not kill criminals. In this case that means arresting the bank robber so he can be brought to trial. If the bank robber comes out of the bank "guns blazing" then the police are certainly justified to shoot him as a matter of self-defense. If, however, the bank robber steps out unarmed and is shot and killed, the family should have the right to bring a wrongful death suit (or something, IANAL) against the police officers in question.
nilved 14y ago
> Sometimes you have to kill people. This is not true.
- orionblastar 14y ago
  This is what the George W. Bush Administration believed and the masses of the majority of the Internet were in an uproar over it. Why has it changed now?
  - alaskamiller 14y ago
    We got used to it. Give it a few more generations and we will completely forgot what it was like pre-9/11. In 7 year more years ask any 18 year old what their world view is and I imagine it would be completely detached from the reality we grew up with. So it is. Obama owes Bush Admin a great debt for the expanded executive powers over the years. A lot of Obama supporters back in 2008 had an erroneous belief that once in office Obama would return the balance of power, instead he opted to protect it as well as not pursue prosecution of acts of torture from the previous administration. Maybe that's just the kind of big boy pants decisions that need to be made for the sake "national security" or maybe it's just the leeway required to operate in a post-9/11 world. Who knows, I'm just a computer nerd, not a poliwonk. And if we're going to be fantasy quarterbacking maybe at the end of 2016 Obama will leave the office emancipating every inch that were taken in the past two decades, decriminalize, and fully end the global war on terror. That's some Abraham Lincoln level stuff right there.
- tokenadult 14y ago
  > > Sometimes you have to kill people. > This is not true. The position that one must never kill someone else is certainly a defensible position, defended over the centuries by many honorable people. I respect that position. But, even though I have largely pacifist ancestors, I think as a father of a daughter that if the Taliban tried to set up their women-oppressing rule anywhere my daughter might have occasion to live or work, I would oppose them by all means necessary, up to and including lethal force. That's not because forcing women to be covered from head to toe when they go out of their homes is itself a capital crime, but because some Taliban fellow-travelers also commit capital crimes like murdering women who try to teach mothers how to vaccinate their children to keep the children from dying from infectious diseases. I would not be ashamed to kill a baby-killer or woman-murderer. AFTER EDIT: I will now take time to give a careful lawyer's read to the document (white paper) linked to from the blog post submitted here. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_W...
aqme28 14y ago
It doesn't matter how many times it mentions the fourth and fifth amendments if these powers of the executive branch are checked only by the executive branch. There's nothing actually stopping them from overriding the fourth or fifth amendment unless there is public or judicial oversight. And if you give someone power, they will eventually use it for an unintended purpose.
adventured 14y ago
Yet somehow America managed to survive two centuries without the desperate need to assassinate its own people being enshrined into law. Terrorism is not some new tactic that calls for a radical change in legal powers. These laws are nothing but an extreme power grab.

iwwr 14y ago

This unchecked expansion of executive power is happening all over the world. Enabled by technology, but also lack of public outrage, soft, welfarish* dictatorships are in the works. Outwardly, it looks democratic, but the democratic principle rests on a limitation of power. Currently, there is no limit, so long as the right language and people are targeted (whistle-blowers, traitors and ultimately, "terrorists"). The public is not yet aware of the danger and by the time they are it may be too late. *In a "guns and butter" sort of way

javert 14y ago
Outwardly, it looks democratic, but the democratic principle rests on a limitation of power. No, democracy is unlimited power by the majority. A constitutional republic is a system that allows the majority to exercise power within a restricted scope. EDIT: I completely agree with your point, though. It probably _is_ too late, but for it to not be too late, people have to learn what's what. And for that to happen, people need to understand what a democracy is and why it's not the right solution.
- baddox 14y ago
  The distinction between a democracy and a constitutional republic is not as real as you make it sound. The only difference is that the constitutional republic has an old piece of paper sitting in a museum somewhere. As we all know, paper has no physical power, so the supposed restrictions on government power still must be enforced (either by a willing government, while that lasts, or an armed populace).
  - javert 14y ago
    No, it _is_ fully as real as I make it sound, but it is an _intellectual_ distinction. People who would like the government to have arbitrary powers argue that the difference isn't really real, and it's important to counter that. The only difference is that the constitutional republic has an old piece of paper sitting in a museum somewhere. No, the specific contents of that piece of paper also matter. Not every constitution establishs a constitutional republic, or a good one. As we all know, paper has no physical power, so the supposed restrictions on government power still must be enforced (either by a willing government, while that lasts, or an armed populace). I agree here, and this is the tricky part. Hopefully more people will come to realize that while they may be in the majority on some issue for some window of time, overall, they need protection from arbitrary governmental power.

brianlovin 14y ago

The title of this is really, really misleading. The first paragraph: This white paper sets forth a legal framework for the...use [of] lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against an American citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida

logn 14y ago
Well if this justification is somehow valid for senior al-Qaida members, it would hold for senior al-Shabaab members, senior Zetas in Mexico, senior Capone members, senior Bloods and Crips, senior LulzSec and Anon, etc. Then you apply the logic which hinges on it being a foreign country and parallel that to a condition in our own country and it gets ugly. After reading this whole memo, I actually see very little about geography or why this wouldn't be legal in the US. The bottom of page 4 and top of 5 seem to actually justify executions within our borders.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  The difference is spelled out very clearly in the document. The United States is in a state of congressionally approved armed conflict with Al Quaida. Where they not in a state of armed conflict, then there would be no legal basis. The consequences of going to war, is that the executive (President, acting as Command in Chief of the armed forces) is authorized to kill the enemy without judicial review.
cskau 14y ago
> Assassinating American Citizens > lethal force [..] against an American citizen Wherein lies the difference?
- saraid216 14y ago
  > who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida Reading comprehension, mostly.

redthrowaway 14y ago

You know what? Seems reasonable. An American citizenship should not be considered a writ of special treatment for a terrorist. If you're going to say that terrorists can be killed without judicial overview, which I think you have to, then you can't say that doesn't apply to those terrorists who happen to be American.

OzzyB 14y ago
Congratulations, you're a Facist.
- revscat 14y ago
  Downvote the parent if you must, but it is not untrue. A defining characteristic of fascism is unchecked executive power, and this is the case here. There are no checks and balances here. The US intelligence apparatus has justified killing its own citizens without judicial or legislative oversight, at the sole discretion of the executive. As uncomfortable as it may be to point out, that is fascism.
  - gfodor 14y ago
    No, actually, that's not what facism means. Facism is a specific type of authoritative power structure almost always involving mass indoctrination of citizens into forming a unified movement via heavy nationalistic propaganda themed around a "vitalization" or "rebirth" of the nation state. In other words, authoritative governments indiscriminately killing people, while not good, is not a defining measure of fascism. In more broad terms, "things that I think are evil" are not either.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      All fascisms involve the identification and elimination of undesireables. Power is the method by which that is accomplished, and nationalism is only a symptom of this force in operation.
      - 14y ago

orionblastar 14y ago

I am just wondering but can people in Occupy Wall Street be targeted for assassination just as well as as a 'potential terrorist' in a foreign nation who happens to be a US citizen? If so we may be seeing a new form of US Government. BTW I thought President Jimmy Carter made assassinations illegal when he was President? Has that law been lifted?

jowiar 14y ago
Read the paper. The issue is not "potential terrorist" but rather swearing allegiance to Al Qaida, between whom and the United States there exists a present state of armed conflict. The US is not in a state of armed conflict with OWS. Also note that the application here is with regard to US citizens outside the US - picture someone training terrorists in a cave in Afghanistan, not someone camping on the streets of New York.
- obstacle1 14y ago
  The paper starts off dealing specifically with high-level Al-Qa'ida operatives. However around page 4 or 5 the language changes to "and associated forces". That definition is too broad to be meaningful, which is a bit creepy.
  - jowiar 14y ago
    Reading the original 2001 AUMF explains where this language comes from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milita...
    - obstacle1 14y ago
      It doesn't explain anything. In fact it is even broader than this whitepaper: >the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons Hamlily v. Obama (2009) crystallizes the legal interpretation of the phrase a bit. Some key points: >The key inquiry, then, is not necessarily whether one self-identifies as a member of the organization (although this could be relevant in some cases), but whether the individual functions or participates within or under the command structure of the organization >The Court also concludes that the authority claimed by the government to detain those who were "part of ... Taliban or al Qaida forces" is consistent with the law of war >the government has the authority to detain members of "associated forces" as long as those forces would be considered co-belligerents under the law of war But note that Hamlily applies to detention and not execution. And in this execution whitepaper, it clearly states that the definition of associated forces "includes a group that would qualify as a co-belligerent under the laws of war". The phrase includes leaves a lot of room for the term "associated forces" to apply to other things. But anyway, IANAL. Link to Hamlily v. Obama (PDF): http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=15512898181635760339&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=MpUQUaXcF82ayQGAyoGYDw&ved=0CC4QgAMoADAA http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=15512898181635760... Link to AUMF (PDF): http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Authorization-for-Use-of-Military-Force-2001.pdf http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Author...

matmann2001 14y ago

Unfortunate automatic URL generation.

dkokelley 14y ago

Without reading the memo (only the linked article), wouldn't top Al Qa'ida operatives be classified as traitors and enemies of the state? (Maybe that's the legal angle expressed in the memo.) Within the country's borders, the government kills its citizens all of the time when the judgement is made that the suspect represents and immediate threat to the safety and well-being of others (see: hostage situations and police shootouts). Otherwise, the state's decision to end someone's life is a long and arduous process filled with courts and laws and appeals (and rightly so!).

drcube 14y ago

This isn't the outrage. The AUMF, which fairly elected US legislators enacted, and this white paper simply attempts to interpret, is. What's it been, 11 years now? We've always been at war with Oceania.

ck2 14y ago

I'm curious if people actually have more of a problem with this than invading Iraq which caused the death of thousands if not millions of innocents. Now history is being rewritten that Iraq was okay. Why are American citizens more important than thousands of innocent Iraqis? We should be protesting war in all forms, not just assassinations. But we're going to have enough problems domestically in a few years with drones everywhere.

bcoates 14y ago
I can think of two big reasons: Invading Iraq was done after an enormous amount of public debate, with the broad approval of Congress, the UN, etc. It may not have ever been the right decision but it was unambiguously "okay" from a following the rules in letter and spirit sense. These assassinations are being done in secret by a president who claims he doesn't have to explain himself to anyone. There isn't a ton of upside in invading a country, compared to the amount of effort and oversight involved. There are easier ways to funnel money to the Military Industrial Complex or distract from domestic political shame. The only real upside is ideological, either rightly or wrongly you think it's a good idea for whatever faction you align yourself with. But assassination of the local population is so very useful. It's a Dremel that a bad leader can use as a half-ass solution to any problem. For the kind of person who would aspire to be President, the logic of assassination is so clear that you don't even have to be paranoid: "That person is an inconvenience to me. I have the power to kill him. Kill him."
- kstenson 14y ago
  The Iraq did not have approval of the UN.
  - bad_user 14y ago
    US didn't get approval from NATO either. I remember Germany and France being in strong opposition. The US basically gave them the finger and invaded Iraq anyway. And yet, here we are years later, with absolutely no evidence of WMDs discovered. And of course, everybody knew that the rationale given for invading Iraq was pure bullshit, you would have to be an idiot to not see it.

untog 14y ago

Is it really that fair to describe this as "Obama's rules"? They were prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel, after all. In any case, good to see this out there- it appears that the New York Times brought a court case to release these papers but were unsuccessful.

yozmsn 14y ago
Same way Bush owns the Guantanamo thing
caseysoftware 14y ago
They were written by officials of the Obama Administration for policies established and enacted by the Obama Administration and used to evaluate decisions the Obama Administration is making. It seems quite logical to call them "Obama's" whether they are rules or justifications..

jkoschei 14y ago

Best. Permalink. Ever.

brokentone 14y ago
In case they change it: "http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas...

coloneltcb 14y ago

This is really a biased source. Reason.com has a clear agenda

smiley1121 14y ago

The president is black. I don't see how this this story is relevant.

rtpg 14y ago

Can someone explain to me how citizenship comes into play for any of these things? I was always under the impression that non-citizens also had basic rights.

ahmadss 14y ago

Here's a response from the ACLU - http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/justice-departments-white-paper-targeted-killing http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/justice-departmen...

rhizome 14y ago

Good thing all that energy has been put into preserving the 2nd Amendment.

conductr 14y ago

nice slug, someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass

tokenadult 14y ago

The full text of the purported Justice Department white paper mentioned in the submitted blog post: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_W...

revelation 14y ago

These are not "rules", these are justifications should the political fallout be of the atomic type. Rules is a horrible euphemism for this absurdity, it implies that there is someone to enforce these rules, which is what is so conspicuously absent from the picture here.

superkuh 14y ago

This memo spends the entire time talking about the 'evil' al-qa'ida and how even if a US citizen joins them then legally they should get to kill them. It goes into deep detail about this scenario for a number of pages. But it skips over, in 5 lines at the very beginning, that it also applies to anyone they arbitrarily say are associated with al-qa'ida. No details about that. The important issue isn't the legal justification of some mythical US al-qa'ida as this document tries to stress. It's about the fact that they decide who is an 'associated group' they can also kill and that decision is secret and arbitrary.

logn 14y ago

Nice to read a treatise on how the Fourth Amendment doesn't prohibit executing citizens without trial. Neither does the First Amendment. The Fourth is about "searches and seizures". That it applies to taking possession of someone's life so as to extinguish it is a pretty twisted premise.

thisrod 14y ago

Let's turn this around. Suppose that an American citizen believes they're on the list, and the president is plotting to kill them. In what circumstances should it be legal for them to assassinate the president? The president is supposed to be just another citizen: one who's very certainly plotting to kill Americans. It's curious how few people apply his reasoning to his own case. Do people believe in some kind of divine right of presidents?

etherael 14y ago

"Because I feel like it" would be less vague than this travesty.

joshfraser 14y ago

The strength of your principles is only tested at the extremes. I hate Westboro Baptist Church, but I'll support their right to say what they want, because that's how much I believe in free speech. And even terrorists deserve the right to a speedy and public trial if they're American. It's part of our constitution, something we're supposed to stand for as a country. It even makes me sad the way we handled the whole Osama Bin Laden assassination. How much of a bigger statement would it have made to the world if we had pulled him out and made him sit trial for his crimes? What happened to our principles that we used to care so much about?

mc32 14y ago
W/re WBC, I think while they have a right to hold views, express them, share them, I do not think, and others have agreed[1], that they have the right to disrupt other people's proceedings (funerals) as part of their right to free expression. [1] http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/16/3870092/appeals-court-delivers-westboro.html http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/16/3870092/appeals-court-d...
camus 14y ago
freespeech is not about going to someone's funeral and spiting on his grave yelling he is going to HELL.

charonn0 14y ago

I think I see a problem with the reasoning on the very first page (second para.): > The President has authority to respond to the imminent threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, arising from his constitutional responsibility to protect the country, the inherent right of the United States to national self defense under international law, Congress's authorization of the use of all necessary and appropriate military force against this enemy, and the existence of an armed conflict with al-Qa'ida under international law. (emphasis mine.) < An armed conflict under international law is a war; and war is a power of nation states, not non-governmental actors (NGAs) no matter how violent. Not very many years ago the US began imprisoning non-Citizens on the justification that al Qaida (an NGA) was ineligible for protection by the Geneva, Hague, and other conventions, and as such the prisoners were neither criminal nor military defendants but prisoners of the President. Now they are arguing that war does exist, permitting the US government to act violently against a US Citizen despite the Constitutional prohibition against punishment without trial. The administration's actions are inconsistent: despite a state of war now supposedly existing, prisoners of war still are not afforded the rights guaranteed to PoWs; despite the writ of habeas corpus not being suspended, US Citizens may be summarily executed at the order of the President.

ghshephard 14y ago

For everybody commenting on this article, please take 45 minutes to read the document. It applies only to the following scenario: 1) The US Citizen has to be a Sr. Operational Leader of al-Qa'ida. 2) An informed high level official of the US Government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of Violent Attack against the United States. 3) Capture is infeasible, and the United states continues to monitor whether capture is feasible. 4) The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles. This Document does not consider American Citizens who are not Sr. Operational Leaders of al-Qa'ida. If you are just an American Citizen who has become a low-level Al-Qa'ida terrorist who is planning imminent attacks on the United States, that the government has discovered, and they are unable to capture you, this document does NOT provide justification to target you. It's a dense document, and hard to read with all that NBC NEWS watermarking, but take the time to read it before commenting on it.

rgrieselhuber 14y ago
It still violates due process.
- rayiner 14y ago
  It might, but it doesn't clearly do so. Due process does not mean a trial. It means what is reasonable under the circumstances. The length of the paper tries to show that there are no reasonable alternatives in the case capture is not feasible. It's a non trivial argument.
  - rgrieselhuber 14y ago
    Yes it does, because the protections provided by the constitution allow for the deprivation of life, liberty, property, etc. in accordance with the "due process of law." There is no law here. Only an arbitrary, internal memo.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Pursuant to the AUMF.

ryanmarsh 14y ago

When you consider that humans have been on the earth some 150,000 - 200,000 years it's interesting that only in the last heartbeat of humanity's existence (4,000 or so) did we decide en masse to grant a monopoly on the use of deadly force to someone else, namely bureaucrats.

logn 14y ago

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/impeach-president-obama-unconstitutional-execution-united-states-citizens/Rdq942HF https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/impeach-president-...

olefoo 14y ago

The following questions come to mind. 1. What is "an informed, high-level official of the US government"; is it the President only, or does it include Cabinet Members? Is it restricted to political appointees, or does it extend into civil service roles as well? 2. "imminent threat of violent attack against the United States" sounds like a definition of a legal standard, what are the elements of such a standard and would the mere possession of weaponry sufficient to carry out such an attack meet it? 3. The phrase "senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force" is used repeatedly in the document; what qualities put one in the category of an "associated force"? Would it be plausible to say that Wikileaks could be described as an associated force with al Qa'ida? Could the Syrian government be so described? What are the strictures here? 4. Given that several known killings of American citizens seem on the face of it to violate the guidelines of this document; most notably the death of Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi it would behoove the government to explain the apparent contradiction. Or if the definition of "operational leader of al-Qa'ida" has been watered down to "military aged male"; to state that publicly. There is no question that dealing with non-state paramilitary actors undermines the nation state paradigm that the existing law of war assumes and that there are a number of edge cases where it is hard to determine whether a given individual should be treated as a combatant or as a criminal; however we as a nation and as a society cannot afford to let our leaders become mere killers without restraint; no matter how heinous the opposition.

phaus 14y ago
It seems doubtful that wiki leaks would qualify, Assange is still breathing. Also, Assad is practically begging to be assassinated( not saying it should be the US that does it), I don't know why anyone would be sympathetic to someone like him. Still, he doesn't really seemed to be linked to terrorism, and he's not really a threat to anyone outside of Syria, so I doubt he'd qualify either.
- olefoo 14y ago
  The indictment against Bradley Manning states that he is being charged with knowingly giving information to the enemy. Since he gave the cables to Wikileaks, is Wikileaks "the enemy"? It's a valid question.

hakaaaaak 14y ago

If the war is over, then assassination would seem to be possible breach of the Geneva convention. If the war isn't over, then when will it be over? And is it even legitimate? The U.S. declared war on the concept "Terrorism" during Bush Jr's presidency, not on specific terrorists or al-Qa'ida. The U.S. also declared a war on "drugs" during the Reagan years. Though I'm in support of both "wars" because I'm in favor of the well-being and defense of the U.S. people, I don't think Congress or the president should have a right to declare war on something that cannot end, i.e. cannot terminate via treaty, surrender/capitulation, complete destruction, or victory. I am a little concerned that we are declaring that it is ok to kill our own citizens without due trial, although I understand there are conditions.

camus 14y ago
well the point you are missing is , it takes place outside a war context. AlQaida is not the army of afghanistan , in fact most of its members are saudis , egyptians or from yemen. So the Geneva convention "doesnt apply" , that's the why of the enemy combattant status and all that illegal crap made legal.

allingeek 14y ago

I had to giggle when I took a look at the URL, "someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass." Which made me wonder if this, rather lengthy, but clearly truncated URL was hand chosen. Either way makes you think about more intelligent filters for URL generators.

mens_rea 14y ago

I love that this title is so unbiased and doesn't at all blow the document out of proportion or make it appear more sinister than it actually is. Thank you for not misleading readers with your title in order to get views and points.

cpursley 14y ago

This power grab will only continue as governments lose their grip on the digital realm - mainly their ability to keep secrets and collect taxes. Real crypto currencies and encrypted communications will change human organization and governments will fight back with everything they have. These new laws over the past several years have been to address the above - they have nothing to do with 'terrorism' - cyber or otherwise. Government's only effective role is to maintain its power. Everything thing else is secondary.

mvid 14y ago

How long until someone makes a flow chart out of this?