3 ms·

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 o

by 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.)

by chao- 14y ago

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.)