3 ms·

A "nit" ... the US Government "claims" to have the authority to assassinate US citizens. My view of the Constitution says the US Gov't does NOT have the autho

A "nit" ... the US Government "claims" to have the authority to assassinate US citizens. My view of the Constitution says the US Gov't does NOT have the authority to execute someone without a trial.

adventured 13y ago
I prefer your interpretation. Better: they have the extraconstitutional ability to execute someone without trial.
dailyrorschach 13y ago
I think its important to say what is actually being claimed. In the case of al-Awaki(Aulaqi) their claim is: "Such considerations allow for the use of lethal force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al'Qaida or its associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, in the following circumstances: (1) the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is not feasible; and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles." With regard to the other three citizens that have been killed in a drone strike, their claim is that these individuals were not specifically targeted and were collateral damage. The document (http://www.justice.gov/slideshow/AG-letter-5-22-13.pdf http://www.justice.gov/slideshow/AG-letter-5-22-13.pdf) does place emphasis on foreign country. So while not making any value judgement on the policy, I think its useful to see it in full, as currently understood. One interesting corollary to look at is the Civil War, where U.S. citizens took up arms against their government and were killed by the government, where no declaration of war took place. This is gotten tangential, but all I'm saying is current claims the U.S. has made do not seem to extend to extra-judicial killing of targets not engaged in active warfare on U.S. soil. Edited: to add quotation marks.
mpyne 13y ago
So if there was one American serving in the Wehrmacht, or the Kriegsmarine, or the Luftwaffe during WWII, the U.S. government's military would have had no authority to shoot back at him without a trial first?
- adventured 13y ago
  False context. The discussion is around domestic assassination (specifically of an unarmed journalist), not world war or war on a battlefield. Radically different concepts historically both from a legal and constitutional stand point. Your example couldn't be further away from the issue of assassinating an unarmed, non-threatening US citizen (whether domestic or overseas).
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Wait, who are we talking about now? You can't seriously mean that al-Awlaki is "an unarmed journalist"?

A "nit" ... the US Government "claims" to have the authority to assassinate US citizens. My view of the Constitution says the US Gov't does NOT have the authority to execute someone without a trial.

adventured 13y ago

I prefer your interpretation. Better: they have the extraconstitutional ability to execute someone without trial.

dailyrorschach 13y ago

I think its important to say what is actually being claimed. In the case of al-Awaki(Aulaqi) their claim is: "Such considerations allow for the use of lethal force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al'Qaida or its associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, in the following circumstances: (1) the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is not feasible; and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles." With regard to the other three citizens that have been killed in a drone strike, their claim is that these individuals were not specifically targeted and were collateral damage. The document (http://www.justice.gov/slideshow/AG-letter-5-22-13.pdf http://www.justice.gov/slideshow/AG-letter-5-22-13.pdf) does place emphasis on foreign country. So while not making any value judgement on the policy, I think its useful to see it in full, as currently understood. One interesting corollary to look at is the Civil War, where U.S. citizens took up arms against their government and were killed by the government, where no declaration of war took place. This is gotten tangential, but all I'm saying is current claims the U.S. has made do not seem to extend to extra-judicial killing of targets not engaged in active warfare on U.S. soil. Edited: to add quotation marks.

mpyne 13y ago

So if there was one American serving in the Wehrmacht, or the Kriegsmarine, or the Luftwaffe during WWII, the U.S. government's military would have had no authority to shoot back at him without a trial first?

adventured 13y ago
False context. The discussion is around domestic assassination (specifically of an unarmed journalist), not world war or war on a battlefield. Radically different concepts historically both from a legal and constitutional stand point. Your example couldn't be further away from the issue of assassinating an unarmed, non-threatening US citizen (whether domestic or overseas).
- mpyne 13y ago
  Wait, who are we talking about now? You can't seriously mean that al-Awlaki is "an unarmed journalist"?