4 ms·

What you describe is not targeted assassination. Your scenario depicts incident response. For example, "neutralize the several people that have hijacked this pl

by obelos 14y ago

What you describe is not targeted assassination. Your scenario depicts incident response. For example, "neutralize the several people that have hijacked this plane." Targeted assassination is, as the name suggests, aimed at a specific person, not because they are currently engaged in firing guns, hijacking planes, taking hostages, and so on, but because "intelligence suggests" that this person has been or could be involved with threats at some point. While we most all of us can envision situations in which targeted assassination is an appropriate response to a threat, the problem is that there are currently no inter-branch checks on the process that determines who is a threat. While due process doesn't mandate a trial or situation-specific court review, it's hard to argue that it doesn't demand input from any other federal branch at all. The criteria are currently determined by executive fiat and are not subject to general review by the judiciary or to modification by legislature. It's not just a matter of "drones," though the use of drones makes these issues more salient. It's about the balance of power distributed throughout the federal government.

anigbrowl 14y ago
While due process doesn't mandate a trial or situation-specific court review, it's hard to argue that it doesn't demand input from any other federal branch at all. I would entirely agree that the AUMF (which underpins the administration's policy on the use of drones) is overbroad and that Congress should either drastically narrow its scope or consider rescinding it completely after US troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2014, after which we would arguably no longer be in a state of war. Likewise, I think it's past time for Congress to develop legislation on the scope of military technology - not least because we are approaching or already at the point where we have technology capable of automatically identifying and firing on targets more quickly and accurately than any human. We don't have the technology for making ethical or legal determinations about the rightness of targeting someone; I'm talking purely about the physical capabilities of machines v. humans. Only Congress can bind the Executive on such matters. The incumbent administration can eschew any intention of using drones domestically (as they have done) but can't bind future administrations.
- Uhhrrr 14y ago
  >Only Congress can bind the Executive on such matters. This is probably the root of your misconceptions. The Executive has enumerated powers, not enumerated limitations.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    And Crongress has the (enumerated) power of declaring war, issuing letters of reprisal and so forth (A1,s8.11), and has lawfully granted the President broad powers to wage war under the AUMF. The fact that the President is constitutionally named as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces means that when a state of war obtains he has the privilege of commanding which military activity is to take place. Would you please try discussing this in its proper context instead of pretending that the Executive pulled its military powers out of thin air?
    - Uhhrrr 14y ago
      Holder's letter doesn't concede any limitations from a non-military context. So you are the one pretending and puling things.
mpyne 14y ago
> Targeted assassination is, as the name suggests, aimed at a specific person, not because they are currently engaged in firing guns, hijacking planes, taking hostages, and so on, but because "intelligence suggests" that this person has been or could be involved with threats at some point. Even that [targeted assassination] has previously been used in a purely military context though (lookup what happened to Admiral Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy, not to mention counter-sniper activities throughout the past hundred years). I have to agree with anigbrown here, if Congress or the judiciary doesn't give direction to the contrary then the Article II powers of the Commander-in-Chief can give some extremely broad powers to him with only a little bit of imagination required. If that's something that scares Congress then they need to clip the wings early instead of whining about interpretation of law (especially interpretation at the farthest reaches of plausibility).

by obelos 14y ago

anigbrowl 14y ago

While due process doesn't mandate a trial or situation-specific court review, it's hard to argue that it doesn't demand input from any other federal branch at all. I would entirely agree that the AUMF (which underpins the administration's policy on the use of drones) is overbroad and that Congress should either drastically narrow its scope or consider rescinding it completely after US troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2014, after which we would arguably no longer be in a state of war. Likewise, I think it's past time for Congress to develop legislation on the scope of military technology - not least because we are approaching or already at the point where we have technology capable of automatically identifying and firing on targets more quickly and accurately than any human. We don't have the technology for making ethical or legal determinations about the rightness of targeting someone; I'm talking purely about the physical capabilities of machines v. humans. Only Congress can bind the Executive on such matters. The incumbent administration can eschew any intention of using drones domestically (as they have done) but can't bind future administrations.

Uhhrrr 14y ago
>Only Congress can bind the Executive on such matters. This is probably the root of your misconceptions. The Executive has enumerated powers, not enumerated limitations.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  And Crongress has the (enumerated) power of declaring war, issuing letters of reprisal and so forth (A1,s8.11), and has lawfully granted the President broad powers to wage war under the AUMF. The fact that the President is constitutionally named as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces means that when a state of war obtains he has the privilege of commanding which military activity is to take place. Would you please try discussing this in its proper context instead of pretending that the Executive pulled its military powers out of thin air?
  - Uhhrrr 14y ago
    Holder's letter doesn't concede any limitations from a non-military context. So you are the one pretending and puling things.

mpyne 14y ago

> Targeted assassination is, as the name suggests, aimed at a specific person, not because they are currently engaged in firing guns, hijacking planes, taking hostages, and so on, but because "intelligence suggests" that this person has been or could be involved with threats at some point. Even that [targeted assassination] has previously been used in a purely military context though (lookup what happened to Admiral Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy, not to mention counter-sniper activities throughout the past hundred years). I have to agree with anigbrown here, if Congress or the judiciary doesn't give direction to the contrary then the Article II powers of the Commander-in-Chief can give some extremely broad powers to him with only a little bit of imagination required. If that's something that scares Congress then they need to clip the wings early instead of whining about interpretation of law (especially interpretation at the farthest reaches of plausibility).