10 ms·

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 te

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.
      - gfodor 14y ago
        you have it backwards. if governments that identify and eliminate undesirables are fascist then pretty much every government in history has been fascist. ie, all men are mortal, but not all mortals are men. words have meaning.
        rhizome 14y ago
        I don't think of fascism as a state of being so much as a tendency, so yeah, choosing to recognize someone as undesirable is a fascistic tendency designed to disallow someone their freedom of being and/or thought. Throughout history different fascistic societies have sought to eliminate people of all schools of thought, free-thinkers and status-quo'ers alike, which while maybe too abstract an explanation in this context, helps illustrate how designating a terrorist or a "leader of Al Qaeda" is neither a self-evident logic nor an unquestionable act. History tells us that the more important a particular undesirable is to the acts of a government, it reveals actual weaknesses in the society that invests that government with its power.
      - saraid216 14y ago
        "I can call it fascism if I want to and you can't stop me, neener, neener."
- javert 14y ago
  Well, in a conventional, declared war (e.g. World War II), enemy soldiers can be killed without judicial oversight. So how do you translate that to fighting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups? Not so easy. But the obvious way is to treat them as enemy soldiers in a conventional war.
  - a_bonobo 14y ago
    It's in my opinion not as obvious as you make it sound - in a drone strike you kill a supposed enemy combatant who at the time of the strike may not be armed, or may not be involved in an armed conflict. For example, the alleged terrorist is driving in an SUV. In this case, the 1949 Geneva conventions might call this a crime (the US denies this AFAIK): >Modern laws of war regarding conduct during war (jus in bello), such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions, provide that it is unlawful for belligerents to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly. [1] Of course, terrorists don't listen to these rules either, by not wearing any uniform, they don't have any. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war
    - javert 14y ago
      Yeah, I mean, I don't think the "obvious" way (my own word) is the right way to do it. That's not actually the way the U.S. does it, either, as you say. So I probably shouldn't have said that.
    - pekk 14y ago
      Was this any less true before the advent of drones?
- redthrowaway 14y ago
  That's a completely indefensible statement. My simple statement that paramilitary adversaries should be combatted militarily in no way makes me a fascist.
jlgreco 14y ago
> If you're going to say that terrorists can be killed without judicial overview, which I think you have to Whoa whoa whoa, hold up there. Explain that bit to me.
- redthrowaway 14y ago
  Groups like Al Qaeda are launching a military, not criminal campaign of violence against the West. It warrants a military response. Patton wasn't rounding up Nazis and delivering them to district attorneys in France; he was shooting them. That's the fundamental difference between military and criminal actions. AQ is not a criminal organization. They're a paramilitary group that has declared war on a state, and they should be treated as such.
  - bratsche 14y ago
    Do you trust our current and future U.S. government to always define "terrorist" the way you do right now? What happens when some kid who's hacking into websites in ten years suddenly gets labeled as a "terrorist"?
    - redthrowaway 14y ago
      Not at all, but this white paper has nothing to do with the definition of "terrorist". It is concerned solely with senior Al Qaeda leadership.
      - rhizome 14y ago
        What constitutes "senior Al Qaeda leadership" in a decentralized and cell-oriented phenomenon?
        redthrowaway 14y ago
        Executive decision. It's far from a perfect system.
nemothekid 14y ago
And who is in charge of labeling people terrorists? What if I decided to label you a terrorist tomorrow because you developed violent video games that poisoned the mind of children? What further steps would I need to take to be able to murder you and get away with it?
- DuskStar 14y ago
  Well, first we'd need to find a picture of you that made you look like you were from a culture that is currently hated/feared, then publicise that picture to show you are a member of that group. Find a couple of links to people who have links to Al-Qaeda (shouldn't be too hard, you are on the internet after all, and you won't be around to defend yourself) and publicise them (suitably redacted to make them seem ominous). We'd then wait until you were in a secluded, foreign-sounding location and drop a missile on your head, to prevent terrorism. Did I miss anything?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
chao- 14y ago
If you're going to say that terrorists can be killed without judicial overview, which I think you have to I vehemently disagree: You don't have to think that terrorists can be killed without judicial overview. I'm also willing to bet I'm not alone, and am curious about why you think the opposite.
- gfodor 14y ago
  To play devil's advocate the reason would be if the terrorist could otherwise not be captured or detained without serious risk to American lives. The problem is that it's hard to trust the executive to not push the limits of what this means.
  - chao- 14y ago
    if the terrorist could otherwise not be captured or detained without serious risk to American lives. I believe you have misinterpreted my objection. I do not object to the killing, I object to the killing without a non-executive legal authority looking over the case. Having a review process and strict bounds on the reasons for which he or she could/should be killed. Let's say I (an American) am a self-proclaimed member of a terrorist or terrorist-affiliated organization (e.g. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb). I produce bombmaking instructions for internet distribution, and repeatedly claim my intent to kill thousands of people. There is a request to have me killed should the opportunity arise, and I could not be otherwise captured. It is almost certain that a legal review process would come to the conclusion that I am indeed a reasonable threat, so on and so forth. Let's say I (an American) am a self-proclaimed Prophet of the Great Gazoob, wielding a Pineapple and a Rubber Duck in mid-day traffic, and repeatedly claim my intent to kill thousands of people. There might be various grounds for legal action against me (state and municipal disturbance laws, maybe a few laws regarding making threats), but it would not include my death. A legal review process would hopefully not label me as being worthy of assassination should the opportunity arise. Disclaimer: I realize I am dismissively using a caricature of a person of unsound mental state here. This is not meant to be an attack on such people, and is used for illustrative purposes.
    - 14y ago
aqme28 14y ago
Killing "terrorists" (whatever that word means) without judicial oversight is counter to the idea of due process. It's something a lot of people rightfully disagree with.
- jonstewart 14y ago
  One of the major legal arguments this paper makes, and backs up with cited case law, is that "due process" does not necessarily imply a court ruling. The "due" in due process has meaning, which is that the process should fit the circumstances. This also doesn't apply to garden variety terrorists, but to "Al-Qaida and associated forces" specifically, against whom Congress declared war. Personally, I find the issue perplexing. But this is analogous to a design document/specification for a function of government, and one of the requirements of the implementation is that it must be legal. So, this lays out a design which purports to legal. Perhaps it isn't, in which case a successful legal counterargument must be made. Perhaps it shouldn't be, in which case lobbying the legislative branch is the best way to proceed.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  No it isn't. You may not like the AUMF [1] but it defines who terrorists are (albeit broadly) and empowers the executive to use military force against them. The constitution promises due process of law, not that said law will be administered by the judicial branch. 1. Authorization for Use of Military Force, SJ Resolution 23 http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.htm...
  - adventured 14y ago
    The due process of law the Constitution attempted to enshrine was very specifically meant to ensure that justice is carried out by the judicial system. Great lengths were taken in fact to secure that outcome. The framers were extraordinarily clear on this. You're exactly wrong.
    - tptacek 14y ago
peterwoo 14y ago
> 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. What about (people labelled as) terrorists who happen to be American residents?
- jonstewart 14y ago
  I can't speak for the parent comment, but the article specifically limits lethal action to overseas use, where capture is infeasible and where that judgment concerning capture is re-evaluated periodically. Also, the U.S. military and the CIA are severely restricted from acting inside U.S. borders.
rayiner 14y ago
Well, no. Americans have due process rights under the US Constitution. Foreigners, generally, don't. The question here is: what process is due when an American leaves the country and takes up arms against the US. It's reasonable to say that they aren't entitled to full judicial process, but they are clearly entitled to something.
- wnoise 14y ago
  Amendment V specifies "no person", neither "no national", nor "no resident", nor "no citizen". Amendment XIV, extending this to limiting the individual states does restrict it to "citizens", but this is a case of the Federal government acting.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Also, the Privileges and Immunities clause has been interpreted as referencing citizens to define the class of rights being engaged by the amendment (those normally enjoyed by citizens), and not as a definition of the class of people to whom those rights are accorded. Of course, Privileges and Immunities is also a weird zombie clause.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    It doesn't mean "no person anywhere." The Constitution is a law. It implicitly limits itself to people under its jurisdiction. Historically, that has been defined territorially and in terms of nationality. You can even argue that US citizens have no Constitutional rights off US soil though it was decided otherwise by the Supreme Court.
    - gnaritas 14y ago
      You've refuted yourself; tens of millions of non citizens are subject to its jurisdiction. Clearly it's not limited to citizens, nor does it say it is. People subject to its jurisdiction seems the more apt interpretation.
      - 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jsmeaton 14y ago
Disclaimer: I'm not American. I believe that if you're willing to let your government kill terrorists without a trial, there should not be exemptions based on where you were born. Americans should not be exempted. Whether the government should or should not target these people is the real question. If this is a war, then sure. But the enemy (terrorists) should be considered enemy combatants within an army - a militia. Then all the rules of warfare should apply.

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.
    - gfodor 14y ago
      you have it backwards. if governments that identify and eliminate undesirables are fascist then pretty much every government in history has been fascist. ie, all men are mortal, but not all mortals are men. words have meaning.
      - rhizome 14y ago
        I don't think of fascism as a state of being so much as a tendency, so yeah, choosing to recognize someone as undesirable is a fascistic tendency designed to disallow someone their freedom of being and/or thought. Throughout history different fascistic societies have sought to eliminate people of all schools of thought, free-thinkers and status-quo'ers alike, which while maybe too abstract an explanation in this context, helps illustrate how designating a terrorist or a "leader of Al Qaeda" is neither a self-evident logic nor an unquestionable act. History tells us that the more important a particular undesirable is to the acts of a government, it reveals actual weaknesses in the society that invests that government with its power.
    - saraid216 14y ago
      "I can call it fascism if I want to and you can't stop me, neener, neener."
javert 14y ago
Well, in a conventional, declared war (e.g. World War II), enemy soldiers can be killed without judicial oversight. So how do you translate that to fighting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups? Not so easy. But the obvious way is to treat them as enemy soldiers in a conventional war.
- a_bonobo 14y ago
  It's in my opinion not as obvious as you make it sound - in a drone strike you kill a supposed enemy combatant who at the time of the strike may not be armed, or may not be involved in an armed conflict. For example, the alleged terrorist is driving in an SUV. In this case, the 1949 Geneva conventions might call this a crime (the US denies this AFAIK): >Modern laws of war regarding conduct during war (jus in bello), such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions, provide that it is unlawful for belligerents to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly. [1] Of course, terrorists don't listen to these rules either, by not wearing any uniform, they don't have any. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war
  - javert 14y ago
    Yeah, I mean, I don't think the "obvious" way (my own word) is the right way to do it. That's not actually the way the U.S. does it, either, as you say. So I probably shouldn't have said that.
  - pekk 14y ago
    Was this any less true before the advent of drones?
redthrowaway 14y ago
That's a completely indefensible statement. My simple statement that paramilitary adversaries should be combatted militarily in no way makes me a fascist.

jlgreco 14y ago

> If you're going to say that terrorists can be killed without judicial overview, which I think you have to Whoa whoa whoa, hold up there. Explain that bit to me.

redthrowaway 14y ago
Groups like Al Qaeda are launching a military, not criminal campaign of violence against the West. It warrants a military response. Patton wasn't rounding up Nazis and delivering them to district attorneys in France; he was shooting them. That's the fundamental difference between military and criminal actions. AQ is not a criminal organization. They're a paramilitary group that has declared war on a state, and they should be treated as such.
- bratsche 14y ago
  Do you trust our current and future U.S. government to always define "terrorist" the way you do right now? What happens when some kid who's hacking into websites in ten years suddenly gets labeled as a "terrorist"?
  - redthrowaway 14y ago
    Not at all, but this white paper has nothing to do with the definition of "terrorist". It is concerned solely with senior Al Qaeda leadership.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      What constitutes "senior Al Qaeda leadership" in a decentralized and cell-oriented phenomenon?
      - redthrowaway 14y ago
        Executive decision. It's far from a perfect system.

nemothekid 14y ago

And who is in charge of labeling people terrorists? What if I decided to label you a terrorist tomorrow because you developed violent video games that poisoned the mind of children? What further steps would I need to take to be able to murder you and get away with it?

DuskStar 14y ago
Well, first we'd need to find a picture of you that made you look like you were from a culture that is currently hated/feared, then publicise that picture to show you are a member of that group. Find a couple of links to people who have links to Al-Qaeda (shouldn't be too hard, you are on the internet after all, and you won't be around to defend yourself) and publicise them (suitably redacted to make them seem ominous). We'd then wait until you were in a secluded, foreign-sounding location and drop a missile on your head, to prevent terrorism. Did I miss anything?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

chao- 14y ago

If you're going to say that terrorists can be killed without judicial overview, which I think you have to I vehemently disagree: You don't have to think that terrorists can be killed without judicial overview. I'm also willing to bet I'm not alone, and am curious about why you think the opposite.

gfodor 14y ago
To play devil's advocate the reason would be if the terrorist could otherwise not be captured or detained without serious risk to American lives. The problem is that it's hard to trust the executive to not push the limits of what this means.
- chao- 14y ago
  if the terrorist could otherwise not be captured or detained without serious risk to American lives. I believe you have misinterpreted my objection. I do not object to the killing, I object to the killing without a non-executive legal authority looking over the case. Having a review process and strict bounds on the reasons for which he or she could/should be killed. Let's say I (an American) am a self-proclaimed member of a terrorist or terrorist-affiliated organization (e.g. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb). I produce bombmaking instructions for internet distribution, and repeatedly claim my intent to kill thousands of people. There is a request to have me killed should the opportunity arise, and I could not be otherwise captured. It is almost certain that a legal review process would come to the conclusion that I am indeed a reasonable threat, so on and so forth. Let's say I (an American) am a self-proclaimed Prophet of the Great Gazoob, wielding a Pineapple and a Rubber Duck in mid-day traffic, and repeatedly claim my intent to kill thousands of people. There might be various grounds for legal action against me (state and municipal disturbance laws, maybe a few laws regarding making threats), but it would not include my death. A legal review process would hopefully not label me as being worthy of assassination should the opportunity arise. Disclaimer: I realize I am dismissively using a caricature of a person of unsound mental state here. This is not meant to be an attack on such people, and is used for illustrative purposes.
  - 14y ago

aqme28 14y ago

Killing "terrorists" (whatever that word means) without judicial oversight is counter to the idea of due process. It's something a lot of people rightfully disagree with.

jonstewart 14y ago
One of the major legal arguments this paper makes, and backs up with cited case law, is that "due process" does not necessarily imply a court ruling. The "due" in due process has meaning, which is that the process should fit the circumstances. This also doesn't apply to garden variety terrorists, but to "Al-Qaida and associated forces" specifically, against whom Congress declared war. Personally, I find the issue perplexing. But this is analogous to a design document/specification for a function of government, and one of the requirements of the implementation is that it must be legal. So, this lays out a design which purports to legal. Perhaps it isn't, in which case a successful legal counterargument must be made. Perhaps it shouldn't be, in which case lobbying the legislative branch is the best way to proceed.
anigbrowl 14y ago
No it isn't. You may not like the AUMF [1] but it defines who terrorists are (albeit broadly) and empowers the executive to use military force against them. The constitution promises due process of law, not that said law will be administered by the judicial branch. 1. Authorization for Use of Military Force, SJ Resolution 23 http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.htm...
- adventured 14y ago
  The due process of law the Constitution attempted to enshrine was very specifically meant to ensure that justice is carried out by the judicial system. Great lengths were taken in fact to secure that outcome. The framers were extraordinarily clear on this. You're exactly wrong.
  - tptacek 14y ago

peterwoo 14y ago

> 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. What about (people labelled as) terrorists who happen to be American residents?

jonstewart 14y ago
I can't speak for the parent comment, but the article specifically limits lethal action to overseas use, where capture is infeasible and where that judgment concerning capture is re-evaluated periodically. Also, the U.S. military and the CIA are severely restricted from acting inside U.S. borders.

rayiner 14y ago

Well, no. Americans have due process rights under the US Constitution. Foreigners, generally, don't. The question here is: what process is due when an American leaves the country and takes up arms against the US. It's reasonable to say that they aren't entitled to full judicial process, but they are clearly entitled to something.

wnoise 14y ago
Amendment V specifies "no person", neither "no national", nor "no resident", nor "no citizen". Amendment XIV, extending this to limiting the individual states does restrict it to "citizens", but this is a case of the Federal government acting.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Also, the Privileges and Immunities clause has been interpreted as referencing citizens to define the class of rights being engaged by the amendment (those normally enjoyed by citizens), and not as a definition of the class of people to whom those rights are accorded. Of course, Privileges and Immunities is also a weird zombie clause.
- rayiner 14y ago
  It doesn't mean "no person anywhere." The Constitution is a law. It implicitly limits itself to people under its jurisdiction. Historically, that has been defined territorially and in terms of nationality. You can even argue that US citizens have no Constitutional rights off US soil though it was decided otherwise by the Supreme Court.
  - gnaritas 14y ago
    You've refuted yourself; tens of millions of non citizens are subject to its jurisdiction. Clearly it's not limited to citizens, nor does it say it is. People subject to its jurisdiction seems the more apt interpretation.
    - 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jsmeaton 14y ago

Disclaimer: I'm not American. I believe that if you're willing to let your government kill terrorists without a trial, there should not be exemptions based on where you were born. Americans should not be exempted. Whether the government should or should not target these people is the real question. If this is a war, then sure. But the enemy (terrorists) should be considered enemy combatants within an army - a militia. Then all the rules of warfare should apply.