6 ms·

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 t

• 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.
    • jowiar 14y ago
      Reading the paper, the justification for this authority is the existence of military conflict between the US and Al Qaeda. From the AUMF: "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." There's a reasonable argument to be made that the AUMF in 2001 is too broad, but clearly, the intention is to declare the existence of a military conflict with Al Qaeda. The US has not, to my knowledge, declared war against Prophets of the Great Gazoob.
      • eropple 14y ago
        Who is so empowered to declare that the Prophets of the Great Gazoob are not affiliated with Al Qaeda and are thus beyond the AUMF's purview? (The answer would be "the judicial branch", but funny how they're cut out of the equation.)
      • D9u 14y ago
        The USA regularly arrests, tries, convicts, and imprisons, foreign nationals who violate US law. The unequal application of criterion for targeted assassination vs arrest-trial-conviction is what bothers me, from a constitutional standpoint. Even disgustingly vile child molesters are afforded a trial. Why not try terrorists? Doing so would be more in keeping with the ideals of the USA as opposed to the current "Empire Strikes Back" paradigm where the very foundations (right to trial, right to be secure in one's 'papers and effects,' innocent til proven guilty) of the USA are being sidestepped in the name of a "war on terror" which, in, and of, itself, is a form of terror. Thus we have arrived at a point where the government regularly abrogates its mandate, and those who are against such acts may be labeled as "terrorists" whose demise is expedited by said policy.
        • mc32 14y ago
          I think one of the main reasons is that they, AQ, are 'outlaws' they operate outside the laws of places they operate from and most of their operational bases are in places which are too weak to locally deal with AQ in a more traditional method. So because they are outside the law construct (of extradition, reach of local enforcement, local complicity, etc.), they, almost by necessity require this approach -which some people question and some approve of. It's an an answer to the question, how does one deal with an entity which does not subject itself to a set of groundrules one expects/operates in. In this case, you meet them half way (in vernacular terms, that's a good deal) for the offender (since their, AQ's, whole existence is predicated on vanquishing Kafirs). The alternatives are you meet them in their terms adopting their groundrules for dealing with you (this is a strong position to work from), another is you deal with them as you deal with other entities with whom you have structured relationships (this is a weak position to work from) since they would not likely reciprocate. A tax evader, you attempt to extradite, if you have agreements, if not, you try to get them when they make a mistake (fly into a place with a treaty). But when a nation is concerned with national security, there is less pussyfooting and more serious action, where possible. (i.e if AQ were based in China, the approach would require some rethinking or at least some negotiation with the host country.)
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  • dlss 14y ago
    This sounds right. I guess I would be in favor of drone airstrikes that froze suspects in carbonite so they could be collected for questioning. However, focusing on current technology, I think the scary part about these rules for airstrikes is: - Suspected people can be killed without being told that they are wanted. This is made worse by the fact that the list of wanted people is not publicly available. - Suspected people can be killed without being given the option of submitting to trial (no "stop or I'll shoot") The above two items make airstrikes unpalatable for me. Thankfully they don't seem beyond remedy (perhaps version 2 of the drone shoots down a ball-and-chain + warrant before resorting to a missile), but in the mean time I find it very disturbing. If this was happening in America I would feel like America was over.
    • deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    • D9u 14y ago
      Yeah... Frozen in carbonite... How about non-lethal chemical agents?
      • dlss 14y ago
        Sorry, that's what I meant. It was supposed to be a funny Star Wars reference :p
    • anigbrowl 14y ago
      the list of wanted people is not publicly available. http://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/t11sdn.pdf http://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/t11sdn.pdf is a good proxy. As for your other point, I'm no expert on the laws of war, but I don't believe one is required to abstain from acting against a legitimate enemy absent a reasonable possibility of taking them prisoner. This distinction is discussed in the white paper; it's against the laws of war to attack an enemy who you have taken into your confidence (eg agreed to meet under a flag of truce, or promised safe passage as one might to a plenipotentiary), but it's quite OK to ambush an enemy who is conducting their own operations against you.
• redthrowaway 14y ago
  Because it's a military, not criminal issue. Al Qaeda is not the Mafia or the Triads; they're a paramilitary group that has declared war on the West. They warrant a military response.
  • aqme28 14y ago
    Excellent! That means we're done and can wrap this whole thing up then: "We achieved our central goal … or have come very close to achieving our central goal, which is to de-capacitate al-Qaeda, to dismantle them, to make sure that they can’t attack us again." -Barack Obama (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/12/us-obama-afghanistan-idUSBRE90A0ZT20130112 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/12/us-obama-afghanist...)
    • redthrowaway 14y ago
      Just because Hitler killed himself doesn't mean you don't shoot back at the soldiers defending Berlin.
      • aqme28 14y ago
        I think the analogy you should have used is "The war is over and the Germans have surrendered. Now let's continue to kill people who were "involved" in "activities."
        • redthrowaway 14y ago
          The death of bin Laden does not mean that Al Qaeda is not a threat. Just because the AQ leadership has been decimated does not mean that you cease operations against them, or that its members cease to be legitimate military targets. Edit: My response made more sense before the parent edited their comment. Their original comment simply asked me to explain how mine was appropriate in the context of this discussion.
        • redthrowaway 14y ago
          That's a ridiculous analogy. The war is by no means over, and no one's surrendered.
• pekk 14y ago
  Who should be killed without judicial overview?
  • tptacek 14y ago
    A killer on a shooting spree.
• bloaf 14y ago
  While this feels like a "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" situation, does the judicial overview always need to be prior the action? In other words, consider soldiers on a battlefield. They do not need judicial approval to kill people they perceive to be enemies. However, they are not given a carte blanche to shoot anyone they wish, or use any means they wish. In cases of soldiers executing questionable judgement, there is a review after the fact. Police officers are also given more leeway when it comes to killing people. I believe there is always some sort of review after the fact, but I don't think that investigation is the same as a court case (i.e. it may occur entirely within executive branch agencies.) Therefore, so long as there is process (read: a paper trail) then the people involved in these assassination programs can undergo judicial review should their decisions be questioned, e.g. by whistleblowers, when the documents are declassified, or if a review is mandated by congress.
  • summerdown2 14y ago
    > consider soldiers on a battlefield One difficulty comes with the definition of battlefield and war. If a battle makes it ok, what does that say about a war on terror, which appears to be perpetual? > Therefore, so long as there is process (read: a paper trail) then the people involved in these assassination programs can undergo judicial review should their decisions be questioned, e.g. by whistleblowers, when the documents are declassified, or if a review is mandated by congress. Another issue comes with the types of review. Whistleblowers are illegal and increasingly shut down. Declassification takes ages, and a Congressional review may never happen. When people talk about due process, they usually mean a process that will always happen, not one that is optional.
    • bloaf 14y ago
      Those are only a few examples of ways that people involved might be prosecuted. Here are some more: The friends/family of an assassinated person could probably claim wrongful death and cause an investigation. Non-government organizations (e.g. the ACLU) could sue for a review. In any case, the threat of legal repercussions exists, and is likely enough to prevent US citizens from being assassinated arbitrarily.