4 ms·

The victims of US executions are not required to be covered under AUMF: "the Department does not believe that US citizenship would immunize a senior operational

by logn 14y ago

The victims of US executions are not required to be covered under AUMF: "the Department does not believe that US citizenship would immunize a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces from use of force abroad authorized by the AUMF or in national self-defense". So, the "or in national self-defense" clause would apply here. And also a careful reading reveals that nothing hinges on it being Al Qaida specifically. Attacking US law enforcement would easily be reason. And none of this requires due process so this whole argument is moot anyhow.

chc 14y ago
That passage still explicitly applies to citizens associated with al-Qa'ida. Killing police officers does not associate someone with al-Qa'ida. This interpretation of the law is entirely in your head and has never been espoused by any US official in words or in practice.
- logn 14y ago
  They say Al Qaida but none of the legal reasoning relies on it being Al Qaida. It's all about anyone who threats the US, whether an immediate one or not, and they even say such threats need not have clear evidence. "an 'imminent' threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future" "A lethal operation against an enemy leader undertaken in national self-defense [...] would fall within a well established variant of public authority justification and therefore would not be murder" ... no mention of Al Qaida. Again, the theory behind this has nothing to do with them.
codex 14y ago
I disagree; the word "abroad" above implies this justification only holds off of U.S. soil. "National self-defense," further, implies a national security threat, which one fugitive clearly is not. He is also not a member of al-Qa'ida, and I that language seems specific to that organization. I agree with your point about due process; it does not take a presidential order to kill an alleged cop-killer; cops kill suspects all the time in the name of self defense or danger to others.
- logn 14y ago
  From the memo: "There is little judicial or other authoritative precedent that speaks directly to the question of the geographic scope of a non-international armed conflict [...] the myopic focus on the geographic nature of an armed conflict in the context of the transnational counterterrorist combat operations serves to frustrate that purpose"
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    They mean as opposed to within the borders of Afghanistan. As you may recall, drones have been heavily employed in Pakistan, and to a lesser extent in Yemen.
    - logn 14y ago
      Ok, maybe that's what they mean. There's no reasoning they make which would assure that this can't happen on US soil.
tptacek 14y ago
First, you are reading a legal brief, not a judicial decision or legislation. Briefs are written to throw every argument against the wall that can possibly stick. Second, you're misreading the brief, which places the entire drone program into the context of the "war" with Al Qaeda and the AUMF. Third, the 2012 NDAA, which I now ironically find I get to use to squelch a conspiracy theory instead of watching it used as an accelerant for one, makes this issue clear: must be affiliated with Al Qaeda, must not be on US soil.
- logn 14y ago
  1) The legal brief matters a lot since there's no due process and this is all conducted in the executive branch in secret 2) Some headings and introductions don't constrain the scope of the legal logic. 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUUdg3K8Q9g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUUdg3K8Q9g
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    Administrative consideration often is the due process. If you look into decisions by courts on administrative law, you'll find that 'due process' is by no means limited to the judicial branch. A lot of people seem to think 'due' is practically an abbreviation of 'judicial.' It isn't.

by logn 14y ago

chc 14y ago

That passage still explicitly applies to citizens associated with al-Qa'ida. Killing police officers does not associate someone with al-Qa'ida. This interpretation of the law is entirely in your head and has never been espoused by any US official in words or in practice.

logn 14y ago
They say Al Qaida but none of the legal reasoning relies on it being Al Qaida. It's all about anyone who threats the US, whether an immediate one or not, and they even say such threats need not have clear evidence. "an 'imminent' threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future" "A lethal operation against an enemy leader undertaken in national self-defense [...] would fall within a well established variant of public authority justification and therefore would not be murder" ... no mention of Al Qaida. Again, the theory behind this has nothing to do with them.

codex 14y ago

I disagree; the word "abroad" above implies this justification only holds off of U.S. soil. "National self-defense," further, implies a national security threat, which one fugitive clearly is not. He is also not a member of al-Qa'ida, and I that language seems specific to that organization. I agree with your point about due process; it does not take a presidential order to kill an alleged cop-killer; cops kill suspects all the time in the name of self defense or danger to others.

logn 14y ago
From the memo: "There is little judicial or other authoritative precedent that speaks directly to the question of the geographic scope of a non-international armed conflict [...] the myopic focus on the geographic nature of an armed conflict in the context of the transnational counterterrorist combat operations serves to frustrate that purpose"
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  They mean as opposed to within the borders of Afghanistan. As you may recall, drones have been heavily employed in Pakistan, and to a lesser extent in Yemen.
  - logn 14y ago
    Ok, maybe that's what they mean. There's no reasoning they make which would assure that this can't happen on US soil.

tptacek 14y ago

First, you are reading a legal brief, not a judicial decision or legislation. Briefs are written to throw every argument against the wall that can possibly stick. Second, you're misreading the brief, which places the entire drone program into the context of the "war" with Al Qaeda and the AUMF. Third, the 2012 NDAA, which I now ironically find I get to use to squelch a conspiracy theory instead of watching it used as an accelerant for one, makes this issue clear: must be affiliated with Al Qaeda, must not be on US soil.

logn 14y ago
1) The legal brief matters a lot since there's no due process and this is all conducted in the executive branch in secret 2) Some headings and introductions don't constrain the scope of the legal logic. 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUUdg3K8Q9g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUUdg3K8Q9g
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  Administrative consideration often is the due process. If you look into decisions by courts on administrative law, you'll find that 'due process' is by no means limited to the judicial branch. A lot of people seem to think 'due' is practically an abbreviation of 'judicial.' It isn't.