12 ms·

Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens

290 points by devx 13y ago

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
In the US, laws against assassination and extrajudicial killing make no distinction between American citizens and others: Foreigners have the exact same protections as citizens. This goes for the Bill of Rights as well. (Aside, this explains why the NSA is only "supposed" to spy outside of the US. Wether the target is a citizen or not is technically irrelevant on this particular point) If you accept that the US is in a war with Al Qaeda, then it is in no way surprising that the US government would then attempt to kill members of that organization. And, again, whether the members are American or not is quite literally irrelevant. However, if the targeted individual is physically located within the US, then the US government is generally supposed to arrest them instead of assassinate them - and again this protects foreigners and US citizens alike.
- pstack 13y ago
  That doesn't line up with the Constitution, which clearly states what the US Government can do (I know, people commonly mistake the Constitution for a list of rights for the people rather than a list of exceptions for the government as to how they may or may not act). The Constitution grants the right to due process for citizens. It doesn't place a limit on where that citizen is currently resided. Killing someone in combat is one thing. The same as if you are forced into a firefight with someone as a police officer. Targeting and assassinating someone who is not immediately and directly threatening realistic harm is another - and that is what has happened, so far. Stating "well, if they're outside the geographical boundaries of the country (or, not at least 100 miles in from the shores and borders of the US, apparently) then they're fair game" is absurd.
  - tikhonj 13y ago
    Okay, let's agree with your premise. Then why is it only absurd in the case of US citizens? After all, the constitution unequivocally applies to everyone in the US. Even me! So why should the fact that somebody is far away change any of that?
  - wiredfool 13y ago
    It's not just citizens. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
- scrabble 13y ago
  If you accept that the US is in a war with Al Qaeda And if you no longer accept this as a valid justification for all of the actions that have followed the 9/11 attack?
  - tikhonj 13y ago
    Then you should take the position that assassinating Al Quaeda members is wrong (and illegal). Regardless of citizenship. Which is entirely consistent with the parent's post.
- r0h1n 13y ago
  I think you're missing the main point: > the memo isn't justifying the due-process-free execution of senior al-Qaida leaders who pose an imminent threat to the US. It is justifying the due-process-free execution of people secretly accused by the president and his underlings, with no due process, of being that. The distinction between (a) government accusations and (b) proof of guilt is central to every free society, by definition, yet this memo - and those who defend Obama's assassination power - willfully ignore it.
  - tikhonj 13y ago
    No, he is not missing the main point. Rather, he is addressing part of the issue. All his post says is that it does not--and should not--matter whether the person in question is an American citizen. This is a fact which stands regardless of your opinion on the rest of the problem, and so it makes sense not to address that. In more explicit terms: if you believe this sort of extrajudicial killing is illegal (which many, including me, do), you should believe it illegal for citizens and non-citizens alike. Similarly, if you believe it legal, it should still be legal for both citizen and non-citizens. Not having citizenship does not magically make it fine to kill you and, similarly, having citizenship does not protect you if you are an enemy combatant. Since the same logic applies in both cases, it's completely independent of the rest of the issue and should not be unnecessarily conflated.
    - ma2rten 13y ago
      > Having citizenship does not protect you if you are an enemy combatant. Actually in that case you loose your citizenship: Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it [may cause] loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer. http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_780.html http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_780.html
      - 13y ago
- moogleii 13y ago
  True, but who deems and verifies if someone is a member of an enemy force? In traditional war, a soldier would have a uniform, and there are laws against killing non-uniformed peeps. In asymmetrical warfare, it's obviously much harder to ID legitimate targets. The problem isn't whether or not the government should be killing known enemies of the state, it's that the executive branch is unilaterally deciding and confirming who is an enemy of the state. The worst case scenario message being sent is that if I or a fellow American steps outside our land, the executive can decide to blow us away, based on evidence they provide. Judge, jury, and executioner. Literally. But it doesn't really matter if the executive provides a photo of an American holding an AK-47, a court needs to decide if the citizen is a traitor or not (and i'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they'd provide at least that much evidence, which ,actually, legally, I would think still isn't much).
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    US civilian courts have no jurisdiction outside of US borders, and again, why would such a requirement need to be met for US citizens but not foreigners? Everyone is afforded the same rights (equality under the law). In a war, there is no legal need to justify killings in front of a judge. This is all just legally speaking, however. Practically, I think that Obama would be very wise to seek approval from a panel of judges for all authorizations, regardless of whom is targeted. Unlike in traditional wars, the US government is very specifically going after certain individuals. It would seem prudent for the actors involved to seek the legitimacy granted by a panel of judges. But I would still say that the law does not require it.
    - moogleii 13y ago
      In a traditional war, legality has already been met via law (either through a formal declaration of war or through the limited war powers given to the executive). There is no need to justify in front of a judge, because the rights have already been granted. But again, you can only kill certain people, also defined by law. You can't just start carpet bombing cities anymore, otherwise, yes, you may very well find yourself in front of a judge (and presumably these cities would consist of foreigners, so yes, there would be a requirement). US courts may not have jurisdiction abroad, but the executor of actions is presumably or will presumably be on American soil at some point.
- deathanatos 13y ago
  > If you accept that the US is in a war with Al Qaeda Not just Al Quaeda, as the article notes: > the title itself: "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida or An Associated Force." "An Associated Force." Don't forget, we're at war with “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces.”[1] Also, > At a hearing in May, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked the Defense Department to provide him with a current list of Al Qaeda affiliates. > The Pentagon responded – but Levin’s office told ProPublica they aren’t allowed to share it. > “…we have classified the list,” said the spokesman, Lt. Col. Jim Gregory. > During the May hearing, Michael Sheehan, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, said he was “not sure there is a list per se.” Describing terrorist groups as “murky” and “shifting,” he said, “it would be difficult for the Congress to get involved in trying to track the designation of which are the affiliate forces” of Al Qaeda. [1]: http://www.propublica.org/article/who-are-we-at-war-with-thats-classified http://www.propublica.org/article/who-are-we-at-war-with-tha... (This was on HN about two months ago, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6117846 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6117846 )
  - dalek_cannes 13y ago
    Lethal Operations, Extraordinary Rendition, Enhanced Interrogation. My God, It's all Newspeak. There should be a constitutional amendment or something mandating that laws should use well understood terms or if that is not possible, clearly define the term before using it. This language allows these people to say "We're going to kill and torture people without having any proof that they're criminals and we don't have to tell you about it" while making it sound like and extra step of paperwork.
- joe_the_user 13y ago
  If you accept that the US is in a war with Al Qaeda, then it is in no way surprising that the US government would then attempt to kill members of that organization. And, again, whether the members are American or not is quite literally irrelevant. Yeah, this is a powerful argument actually. Much as I'd love to argue the president is over-stepping his bounds here, I can see that if the fiction that a struggle against the entity "terror" is the fundamental equivalent of the real, shooting war with Germany, then everything else does follow. If a few rapscallions hatching plots in Yeman are fundamentally, essentially equivalent to an entire column of tanks engaged in a pitch battle with the army, well then it is logical, in the garbage-in, garbage-out form of logical, for the US army to just blow them away. Shows just how pernicious these metaphors can be.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  well, tax laws make distinction between non-Americans and Americans outside of the US. One can see how following the similar reasoning criminal law (or whatever law is the basis for extrajudicial killings (sorry for the oxymoron)) can make similar distinction.
ck2 13y ago
It's legal when WE do it - The Government
- pstack 13y ago
  More relevantly: "When the president does something -- that means it is not illegal." -- Richard M. Nixon
  - ck2 13y ago
    Nixon would be freaking out over what politicians get away with today and never have to resign. In fact their successors simply up-the-ante. Remember how hated Bush's lawyers were? Now we know why Obama didn't prosecute any of them.
    - adventured 13y ago
      The next Nixon will bring a reign of terror down on the US (regardless of which party he comes from), using the laws that Clinton, Bush and Obama and others have passed.
miles 13y ago
For those who regularly ask why these stories appear on HN: The president's underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president - at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as "Terror Tuesday" - then chooses from "baseball cards" and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man, and those powers are exercised in the dark. This should be daily news everywhere until it is addressed and we start scaling back the War on Humanity. This is simply not how America is supposed to work.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Shivetya 13y ago
  Where is the press, where are the protesters? Its not hard to understand why it does not change. Its sad that criticism can be blunted by the fear of being labeled.
  - chii 13y ago
    not sure about the press, but the protests will only happen if this is affecting the average american, whose comfortable life is being maintained - until suddenly, the average american finds itself in a police state, unable to protest...
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  I am in full agreement, but I have to ask, why now? This hasn't been news for years.
  - phy6 13y ago
    Why now? Because we elected Change, and we're waiting for it. The question should be "Why NOT now?". Of all times, when the most vocal of Americans enjoy a popular President, why wait until the tide changes to press for the change we all see is needed?
adamnemecek 13y ago
Feels like some sort of line has been crossed.
- shortcj 13y ago
  It was called the magna carta.
aurelius83 13y ago
The other day several american muslims strapped a bomb onto themselves and killed themselves and many innocent people in a suicide attack in Kenya. If there were actual legal mechanisms built into the US constitution or laws created that dealt with fighting an asymmetrical war with people like this then I really doubt the President would go through this process, but that's not the case. I'm not really sure how we should handle this but this isn't some evil plan to grab more power by the Obama administration, it's an ad hoc solution to a really difficult problem.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  It's not really a solution of any kind if it creates problems vastly bigger and more terrifying that the ones it purports to solve. It's kind of like killing a fly on a window by throwing a hand grenade at it.
  - shitlord 13y ago
    But the majority of people think it's an acceptable solution for the time being. If they weren't, then there would be a political shitstorm. And there really isn't - because nobody can give a better solution than letting those people just go free and do as they please. From my experience, the majority of people actually terrified of this are people on the internet. A lot of people are uneasy with it, but only on the internet are people terrified. The government isn't going to go around killing anyone it dislikes willy-nilly.
    - alexqgb 13y ago
      Maybe, maybe not. But murdering people isn't the only awful thing a government can do. If it feels it can get away with this it'll think it can get away with anything.
      - shitlord 13y ago
        There's a big difference between killing someone suspected of being a terrorist, and indiscriminately gunning down a bunch of people. The latter is undeniably "murder", but the former, not so much. It's not ideal, but IMO it's not an atrocity. I guess it all comes down which version of justice you favor: the one prescribed by law or the general consensus for what is acceptable.
aurelius83 13y ago
The other day several american muslims strapped a bomb onto themselves and killed themselves and many innocent people in a suicide attack in Kenya. If there were actual legal mechanisms built into the US constitution or laws created that dealt with fighting an asymmetrical war with people like this then I really doubt the President would go through this process, but that's not the case. I'm not really sure how we should handle this but this isn't some evil plan to grab more power by the Obama administration, it's an ad hoc solution to a really difficult problem.
aurelius83 13y ago
The other day several american muslims strapped a bomb onto themselves and killed themselves and many innocent people in a suicide attack in Kenya. If there were actual legal mechanisms built into the US constitution or laws created that dealt with fighting an asymmetrical war with people like this then I really doubt the President would go through this process, but that's not the case. I'm not really sure how we should handle this but this isn't some evil plan to grab more power by the Obama administration, it's an ad hoc solution to a really difficult problem.
devx 13y ago
What bothers me most about what the government has been doing lately (for the past decade or so), is that they seem to have total disregard for the spirit of the law. All they do nowadays is try to find legal loopholes and mind-bending justifications for doing anything they want and pretending that anything is fair game and in the "legal limits". I'm not sure what even the Courts can do against this, because this trend from the government and authorities is so overwhelming and they're doing it so much, that the Courts would really be fighting a very tough uphill battle, while the government gets away with so many things they pretend are "legal" for many years.
hrasyid 13y ago
How to respond to this kind of argument: We don't need to give "due process" to enemy soldiers before we kill them. How are al-Qaeda members different?
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  Your question itself falls victim to one of the biggest fallacies highlighted by this article: that is, you accept that government accusation (e.g. that someone is an al-Qaeda member) is tantamount to guilt. Establishing the truth of such an accusation is the very objective of due process. Thus, your question is internally inconsistent and circular. It literally cannot be answered.
  - hrasyid 13y ago
    Right. So the difference is the "killable" status of suspected Al-Qaeda members must be established by due process, but for enemy soldiers the "due process" is simply the identification of their uniform. Then what is the effective and ethical way of waging war against non-uniformed enemy? Arrest everyone then try them? What if it's not practical to do that?
- roryokane 13y ago
  I think the difference is that these targets aren't Al-Qaeda members. They are people accused, with no oversight, of being Al-Qaeda members. So you have to trust the targeting decisions of just the president and his aides, rather than those people plus judges in the judicial branch. Whereas in a normal war, it is easier to justify who the enemy soldiers are, since they are in uniform or shooting at you.
  - TheLegace 13y ago
    I can't believe no one looks at Guantanomo Bay and giving free reign to secretly killed supposedly accused people of crimes may/may not have committed without any recourse. I think many here anyway can agree that Guantanomo Bay needs to be shutdown, but obviously won't be. What if later down the line we need to decide that the power has gotten out of control(if it hasn't already) and needs to be shut down. But can't because the terrorists win.
maxcan 13y ago
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
_s 13y ago
What can a non-US citizen do? What can a US citizen do? I don't mean this in a sarcastic or confrontational manner at all, but it is a genuine enquiry - other than raising awareness of such issues to the voting public and donating to foundations such as the EFF - what more can an average Joe do to prevent / reel back these reaches and abuses of power?
grey-area 13y ago
Let's consider a specific example: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-kil... The missile killed him, his teenage cousin and at least five other civilians on Oct. 14, 2011, while the boys were eating dinner at an open-air restaurant in southern Yemen...The attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., said only that Abdulrahman was not “specifically targeted,” raising more questions than he answered. The people killed in this attack were either killed by mistake, or because they were nearby someone considered a target, eating at a restaurant. Because the reasons for killing were secret, if the president decided to include some of his enemies or political enemies of allies in Yemen, made a mistake, or was given false information, it would never be known, because the list is secret. We don't know why or even who was targeted. In war we accept assassinations, murder without trial, and mass murder, because people are fighting for survival. But even in war only enemy fighters should be targeted, and civilians should not. We have a whole list of rules of war which are being ignored, and this is not even a formal war - war has not been declared, uniforms are not worn, so the rules of war do not apply, but if they did, they are being broken. We find ourselves in a very murky area where the US is at war with an undefined and secret enemy, who may be anywhere in the world, and lives amongst the civilian population. The reaction of the Obama administration has been to order assassinations from a secret list, also killing any civilians nearby. There is no trial, no charge, and no suspicion, just a decision to kill and an attack, wherever the target may be. This means the president and his advisers have arrogated the power to decide on life or death for anyone on the planet, without limitation in time or space, and without justification or warning, and also killing civilians nearby. The implications of this are that this war will never end, the targets are everywhere, and the list of enemies will continue to expand in secret. Nobody is safe, because anyone might be standing next to someone on Obama's list at some point, and the general terror and hate instilled by these methods will continually generate new enemies. The Obama administration has adopted terror as a method of war - they have become what they set out to fight.
- yapcguy 13y ago
  Good points except for... > an undefined and secret enemy Just this month alone... - Islamic terrorists gun down over 60 people in a shopping mall in Kenya. - Islamic terrorists blow up over 70 people in a church in Pakistan. - Islamic terrorists massacre over 160 travelers in Nigeria. - Islamic terrorists take hundreds hostage in a coastal city in the Philippines.
MysticFear 13y ago
> (2) capture is infeasible I am not sure how they can even justify how any capture can be infeasible. Since, the US clearly found capturing Osama Bin Laden to be feasible even within an allied country.
Fuxy 13y ago
Heil Obama!
ad80 13y ago
And he got a Nobel price... it sounds like an terrible joke.
jeroen94704 13y ago
Yes, this is bad, as everybody has a right to a fair trial. However, I think it is _far_ worse that it is EVER, in any way, shape or form, deemed acceptable that innocent bystanders get killed in order to get rid of a single individual, no matter how horrible their acts may have been. It is frankly appalling that people get all upset about the fact that the target in question was a US citizen, and blatantly ignore the addition that "at least five other civilians" were killed in the same attack.
Mordor 13y ago
They are so fond of telling us, "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." What does Obama fear?
CmonDev 13y ago
It's funny how they used "US citizens" instead of "people".
shortcj 13y ago
The sad fact is that 99% of people just don't understand the concept of 'rule of law.' They think it means 'rule of the law man.'
gtirloni 13y ago
Funny thing Hail to the King started to play while I was reading this article.

290 points by devx 13y ago

In the US, laws against assassination and extrajudicial killing make no distinction between American citizens and others: Foreigners have the exact same protections as citizens. This goes for the Bill of Rights as well. (Aside, this explains why the NSA is only "supposed" to spy outside of the US. Wether the target is a citizen or not is technically irrelevant on this particular point) If you accept that the US is in a war with Al Qaeda, then it is in no way surprising that the US government would then attempt to kill members of that organization. And, again, whether the members are American or not is quite literally irrelevant. However, if the targeted individual is physically located within the US, then the US government is generally supposed to arrest them instead of assassinate them - and again this protects foreigners and US citizens alike.

pstack 13y ago
That doesn't line up with the Constitution, which clearly states what the US Government can do (I know, people commonly mistake the Constitution for a list of rights for the people rather than a list of exceptions for the government as to how they may or may not act). The Constitution grants the right to due process for citizens. It doesn't place a limit on where that citizen is currently resided. Killing someone in combat is one thing. The same as if you are forced into a firefight with someone as a police officer. Targeting and assassinating someone who is not immediately and directly threatening realistic harm is another - and that is what has happened, so far. Stating "well, if they're outside the geographical boundaries of the country (or, not at least 100 miles in from the shores and borders of the US, apparently) then they're fair game" is absurd.
- tikhonj 13y ago
  Okay, let's agree with your premise. Then why is it only absurd in the case of US citizens? After all, the constitution unequivocally applies to everyone in the US. Even me! So why should the fact that somebody is far away change any of that?
- wiredfool 13y ago
  It's not just citizens. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
scrabble 13y ago
If you accept that the US is in a war with Al Qaeda And if you no longer accept this as a valid justification for all of the actions that have followed the 9/11 attack?
- tikhonj 13y ago
  Then you should take the position that assassinating Al Quaeda members is wrong (and illegal). Regardless of citizenship. Which is entirely consistent with the parent's post.
r0h1n 13y ago
I think you're missing the main point: > the memo isn't justifying the due-process-free execution of senior al-Qaida leaders who pose an imminent threat to the US. It is justifying the due-process-free execution of people secretly accused by the president and his underlings, with no due process, of being that. The distinction between (a) government accusations and (b) proof of guilt is central to every free society, by definition, yet this memo - and those who defend Obama's assassination power - willfully ignore it.
- tikhonj 13y ago
  No, he is not missing the main point. Rather, he is addressing part of the issue. All his post says is that it does not--and should not--matter whether the person in question is an American citizen. This is a fact which stands regardless of your opinion on the rest of the problem, and so it makes sense not to address that. In more explicit terms: if you believe this sort of extrajudicial killing is illegal (which many, including me, do), you should believe it illegal for citizens and non-citizens alike. Similarly, if you believe it legal, it should still be legal for both citizen and non-citizens. Not having citizenship does not magically make it fine to kill you and, similarly, having citizenship does not protect you if you are an enemy combatant. Since the same logic applies in both cases, it's completely independent of the rest of the issue and should not be unnecessarily conflated.
  - ma2rten 13y ago
    > Having citizenship does not protect you if you are an enemy combatant. Actually in that case you loose your citizenship: Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it [may cause] loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer. http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_780.html http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_780.html
    - 13y ago
moogleii 13y ago
True, but who deems and verifies if someone is a member of an enemy force? In traditional war, a soldier would have a uniform, and there are laws against killing non-uniformed peeps. In asymmetrical warfare, it's obviously much harder to ID legitimate targets. The problem isn't whether or not the government should be killing known enemies of the state, it's that the executive branch is unilaterally deciding and confirming who is an enemy of the state. The worst case scenario message being sent is that if I or a fellow American steps outside our land, the executive can decide to blow us away, based on evidence they provide. Judge, jury, and executioner. Literally. But it doesn't really matter if the executive provides a photo of an American holding an AK-47, a court needs to decide if the citizen is a traitor or not (and i'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they'd provide at least that much evidence, which ,actually, legally, I would think still isn't much).
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  US civilian courts have no jurisdiction outside of US borders, and again, why would such a requirement need to be met for US citizens but not foreigners? Everyone is afforded the same rights (equality under the law). In a war, there is no legal need to justify killings in front of a judge. This is all just legally speaking, however. Practically, I think that Obama would be very wise to seek approval from a panel of judges for all authorizations, regardless of whom is targeted. Unlike in traditional wars, the US government is very specifically going after certain individuals. It would seem prudent for the actors involved to seek the legitimacy granted by a panel of judges. But I would still say that the law does not require it.
  - moogleii 13y ago
    In a traditional war, legality has already been met via law (either through a formal declaration of war or through the limited war powers given to the executive). There is no need to justify in front of a judge, because the rights have already been granted. But again, you can only kill certain people, also defined by law. You can't just start carpet bombing cities anymore, otherwise, yes, you may very well find yourself in front of a judge (and presumably these cities would consist of foreigners, so yes, there would be a requirement). US courts may not have jurisdiction abroad, but the executor of actions is presumably or will presumably be on American soil at some point.
deathanatos 13y ago
> If you accept that the US is in a war with Al Qaeda Not just Al Quaeda, as the article notes: > the title itself: "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida or An Associated Force." "An Associated Force." Don't forget, we're at war with “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces.”[1] Also, > At a hearing in May, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked the Defense Department to provide him with a current list of Al Qaeda affiliates. > The Pentagon responded – but Levin’s office told ProPublica they aren’t allowed to share it. > “…we have classified the list,” said the spokesman, Lt. Col. Jim Gregory. > During the May hearing, Michael Sheehan, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, said he was “not sure there is a list per se.” Describing terrorist groups as “murky” and “shifting,” he said, “it would be difficult for the Congress to get involved in trying to track the designation of which are the affiliate forces” of Al Qaeda. [1]: http://www.propublica.org/article/who-are-we-at-war-with-thats-classified http://www.propublica.org/article/who-are-we-at-war-with-tha... (This was on HN about two months ago, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6117846 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6117846 )
- dalek_cannes 13y ago
  Lethal Operations, Extraordinary Rendition, Enhanced Interrogation. My God, It's all Newspeak. There should be a constitutional amendment or something mandating that laws should use well understood terms or if that is not possible, clearly define the term before using it. This language allows these people to say "We're going to kill and torture people without having any proof that they're criminals and we don't have to tell you about it" while making it sound like and extra step of paperwork.
joe_the_user 13y ago
If you accept that the US is in a war with Al Qaeda, then it is in no way surprising that the US government would then attempt to kill members of that organization. And, again, whether the members are American or not is quite literally irrelevant. Yeah, this is a powerful argument actually. Much as I'd love to argue the president is over-stepping his bounds here, I can see that if the fiction that a struggle against the entity "terror" is the fundamental equivalent of the real, shooting war with Germany, then everything else does follow. If a few rapscallions hatching plots in Yeman are fundamentally, essentially equivalent to an entire column of tanks engaged in a pitch battle with the army, well then it is logical, in the garbage-in, garbage-out form of logical, for the US army to just blow them away. Shows just how pernicious these metaphors can be.
VladRussian2 13y ago
well, tax laws make distinction between non-Americans and Americans outside of the US. One can see how following the similar reasoning criminal law (or whatever law is the basis for extrajudicial killings (sorry for the oxymoron)) can make similar distinction.

ck2 13y ago

It's legal when WE do it - The Government

pstack 13y ago
More relevantly: "When the president does something -- that means it is not illegal." -- Richard M. Nixon
- ck2 13y ago
  Nixon would be freaking out over what politicians get away with today and never have to resign. In fact their successors simply up-the-ante. Remember how hated Bush's lawyers were? Now we know why Obama didn't prosecute any of them.
  - adventured 13y ago
    The next Nixon will bring a reign of terror down on the US (regardless of which party he comes from), using the laws that Clinton, Bush and Obama and others have passed.

miles 13y ago

For those who regularly ask why these stories appear on HN: The president's underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president - at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as "Terror Tuesday" - then chooses from "baseball cards" and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man, and those powers are exercised in the dark. This should be daily news everywhere until it is addressed and we start scaling back the War on Humanity. This is simply not how America is supposed to work.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Shivetya 13y ago
Where is the press, where are the protesters? Its not hard to understand why it does not change. Its sad that criticism can be blunted by the fear of being labeled.
- chii 13y ago
  not sure about the press, but the protests will only happen if this is affecting the average american, whose comfortable life is being maintained - until suddenly, the average american finds itself in a police state, unable to protest...
thaumasiotes 13y ago
I am in full agreement, but I have to ask, why now? This hasn't been news for years.
- phy6 13y ago
  Why now? Because we elected Change, and we're waiting for it. The question should be "Why NOT now?". Of all times, when the most vocal of Americans enjoy a popular President, why wait until the tide changes to press for the change we all see is needed?

adamnemecek 13y ago

Feels like some sort of line has been crossed.

shortcj 13y ago
It was called the magna carta.

aurelius83 13y ago

The other day several american muslims strapped a bomb onto themselves and killed themselves and many innocent people in a suicide attack in Kenya. If there were actual legal mechanisms built into the US constitution or laws created that dealt with fighting an asymmetrical war with people like this then I really doubt the President would go through this process, but that's not the case. I'm not really sure how we should handle this but this isn't some evil plan to grab more power by the Obama administration, it's an ad hoc solution to a really difficult problem.

alexqgb 13y ago
It's not really a solution of any kind if it creates problems vastly bigger and more terrifying that the ones it purports to solve. It's kind of like killing a fly on a window by throwing a hand grenade at it.
- shitlord 13y ago
  But the majority of people think it's an acceptable solution for the time being. If they weren't, then there would be a political shitstorm. And there really isn't - because nobody can give a better solution than letting those people just go free and do as they please. From my experience, the majority of people actually terrified of this are people on the internet. A lot of people are uneasy with it, but only on the internet are people terrified. The government isn't going to go around killing anyone it dislikes willy-nilly.
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    Maybe, maybe not. But murdering people isn't the only awful thing a government can do. If it feels it can get away with this it'll think it can get away with anything.
    - shitlord 13y ago
      There's a big difference between killing someone suspected of being a terrorist, and indiscriminately gunning down a bunch of people. The latter is undeniably "murder", but the former, not so much. It's not ideal, but IMO it's not an atrocity. I guess it all comes down which version of justice you favor: the one prescribed by law or the general consensus for what is acceptable.

aurelius83 13y ago

devx 13y ago

What bothers me most about what the government has been doing lately (for the past decade or so), is that they seem to have total disregard for the spirit of the law. All they do nowadays is try to find legal loopholes and mind-bending justifications for doing anything they want and pretending that anything is fair game and in the "legal limits". I'm not sure what even the Courts can do against this, because this trend from the government and authorities is so overwhelming and they're doing it so much, that the Courts would really be fighting a very tough uphill battle, while the government gets away with so many things they pretend are "legal" for many years.

hrasyid 13y ago

How to respond to this kind of argument: We don't need to give "due process" to enemy soldiers before we kill them. How are al-Qaeda members different?

unclebucknasty 13y ago
Your question itself falls victim to one of the biggest fallacies highlighted by this article: that is, you accept that government accusation (e.g. that someone is an al-Qaeda member) is tantamount to guilt. Establishing the truth of such an accusation is the very objective of due process. Thus, your question is internally inconsistent and circular. It literally cannot be answered.
- hrasyid 13y ago
  Right. So the difference is the "killable" status of suspected Al-Qaeda members must be established by due process, but for enemy soldiers the "due process" is simply the identification of their uniform. Then what is the effective and ethical way of waging war against non-uniformed enemy? Arrest everyone then try them? What if it's not practical to do that?
roryokane 13y ago
I think the difference is that these targets aren't Al-Qaeda members. They are people accused, with no oversight, of being Al-Qaeda members. So you have to trust the targeting decisions of just the president and his aides, rather than those people plus judges in the judicial branch. Whereas in a normal war, it is easier to justify who the enemy soldiers are, since they are in uniform or shooting at you.
- TheLegace 13y ago
  I can't believe no one looks at Guantanomo Bay and giving free reign to secretly killed supposedly accused people of crimes may/may not have committed without any recourse. I think many here anyway can agree that Guantanomo Bay needs to be shutdown, but obviously won't be. What if later down the line we need to decide that the power has gotten out of control(if it hasn't already) and needs to be shut down. But can't because the terrorists win.

maxcan 13y ago

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

_s 13y ago

What can a non-US citizen do? What can a US citizen do? I don't mean this in a sarcastic or confrontational manner at all, but it is a genuine enquiry - other than raising awareness of such issues to the voting public and donating to foundations such as the EFF - what more can an average Joe do to prevent / reel back these reaches and abuses of power?

grey-area 13y ago

Let's consider a specific example: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-kil... The missile killed him, his teenage cousin and at least five other civilians on Oct. 14, 2011, while the boys were eating dinner at an open-air restaurant in southern Yemen...The attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., said only that Abdulrahman was not “specifically targeted,” raising more questions than he answered. The people killed in this attack were either killed by mistake, or because they were nearby someone considered a target, eating at a restaurant. Because the reasons for killing were secret, if the president decided to include some of his enemies or political enemies of allies in Yemen, made a mistake, or was given false information, it would never be known, because the list is secret. We don't know why or even who was targeted. In war we accept assassinations, murder without trial, and mass murder, because people are fighting for survival. But even in war only enemy fighters should be targeted, and civilians should not. We have a whole list of rules of war which are being ignored, and this is not even a formal war - war has not been declared, uniforms are not worn, so the rules of war do not apply, but if they did, they are being broken. We find ourselves in a very murky area where the US is at war with an undefined and secret enemy, who may be anywhere in the world, and lives amongst the civilian population. The reaction of the Obama administration has been to order assassinations from a secret list, also killing any civilians nearby. There is no trial, no charge, and no suspicion, just a decision to kill and an attack, wherever the target may be. This means the president and his advisers have arrogated the power to decide on life or death for anyone on the planet, without limitation in time or space, and without justification or warning, and also killing civilians nearby. The implications of this are that this war will never end, the targets are everywhere, and the list of enemies will continue to expand in secret. Nobody is safe, because anyone might be standing next to someone on Obama's list at some point, and the general terror and hate instilled by these methods will continually generate new enemies. The Obama administration has adopted terror as a method of war - they have become what they set out to fight.

yapcguy 13y ago
Good points except for... > an undefined and secret enemy Just this month alone... - Islamic terrorists gun down over 60 people in a shopping mall in Kenya. - Islamic terrorists blow up over 70 people in a church in Pakistan. - Islamic terrorists massacre over 160 travelers in Nigeria. - Islamic terrorists take hundreds hostage in a coastal city in the Philippines.

MysticFear 13y ago

> (2) capture is infeasible I am not sure how they can even justify how any capture can be infeasible. Since, the US clearly found capturing Osama Bin Laden to be feasible even within an allied country.

Fuxy 13y ago

Heil Obama!

ad80 13y ago

And he got a Nobel price... it sounds like an terrible joke.

jeroen94704 13y ago

Yes, this is bad, as everybody has a right to a fair trial. However, I think it is _far_ worse that it is EVER, in any way, shape or form, deemed acceptable that innocent bystanders get killed in order to get rid of a single individual, no matter how horrible their acts may have been. It is frankly appalling that people get all upset about the fact that the target in question was a US citizen, and blatantly ignore the addition that "at least five other civilians" were killed in the same attack.

Mordor 13y ago

They are so fond of telling us, "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." What does Obama fear?

CmonDev 13y ago

It's funny how they used "US citizens" instead of "people".

shortcj 13y ago

The sad fact is that 99% of people just don't understand the concept of 'rule of law.' They think it means 'rule of the law man.'

gtirloni 13y ago

Funny thing Hail to the King started to play while I was reading this article.