31 ms·

Rand Paul: Show Us the Drone Memos

219 points by applecore 12y ago

jseliger 12y ago
This is incidental to the main argument, but I think it's important enough to observe here: Since that letter, I have learned more. The American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to all senators on May 6, noting that in the view of the Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein, “there are at least eleven OLC opinions on the targeted killing or drone program.” I joined the ACLU a couple years ago in part because I'd read a lot about the various illegal and immoral activities parts of the government has done and didn't see an obvious way for me, a somewhat normal, random guy, to do much about it. There's a lot of (justified) Internet outrage over the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki, widespread spying, and so forth. But without converting outrage to action, the outrage means very little. Does my $50 do much on its own? Perhaps not. But it means something.
- donohoe 12y ago
  I've been meaning to join as a member for a long time. https://www.aclu.org/secure/our-civil-liberties-are-under-attack-1?ms=hackernews https://www.aclu.org/secure/our-civil-liberties-are-under-at...
- durkie 12y ago
  I once gave them a similar amount, probably 10 years ago. They have since spent at least that amount on postage and call center labor asking me for more money. This greatly discourages me from wanting to give more to them, even though I like what they do with their non-outreach funding (however small that may be)
  - danielweber 12y ago
    I made the error of giving Public Citizen a few bucks a few years ago. They since sold my name to dozens of other organizations. There was absolutely no chance to opt-out when I donated. It's amazing how quickly an NGO can burn off its good will.
  - arjie 12y ago
    Well, that sounds unlikely given that [their Charity Navigator information](http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3247#.U3DgkfldV5Y http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary...). Perhaps you over-estimate the cost of fundraising. 12 cents of each dollar are spent on fundraising, and 84 cents of each dollar are spent on their aims. It is annoying that they keep calling you, though.
    - jeffdavis 12y ago
      Those numbers are averages. Maybe they get a lot of larger donors or recurring donors. It's quite possible that they wasted his entire donation trying to convert him from a $50 donor into a $1000+ donor.
      - vidarh 12y ago
        Possibly. But if so, they do that for a simple reason: "Upselling" past donors will in most situations have substantially higher conversion rates than obtaining new donors. It may not have been cost-effective in his specific case, but it's likely a cost-effective use of their resources on average.
        jeffdavis 12y ago
        But it's a bait-and-switch. The donor expects that their $50 contribution will be 90%+ spent on the cause, but it's not.
  - termain 12y ago
    My understanding that much of the legal work is donated so outreach seems like a reasonable expenditure, particularly if it increases revenues or brings in more donated legal work.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      If "it increases revenue" is one of the better reasons a charity can offer for an activity, I think they should stop it. The thought behind that is that they should be maximizing their effectiveness not their revenues, and so should have lots of better things to discuss.
    - genericuser 12y ago
      As the other poster I believe was trying to point out 'if it increases revenue' is the wrong way to justify spending money to make more money. Since revenue is not profit, and most charities are non-profits anyway, more revenue does not necessarily equate to more money for betterment of the causes the charity serves. As a complete hypothetical scenario examining two extremes which hopefully do not exist. Charity B.A.D. could spend 100% of its revenue on seeking more donations and maintaining existing ones, leaving no resources for actually doing anything related to their cause, or distributing non monetary resources donated even. But they double revenue every year. Charity P.O.R. Could spend 100% of its revenue, which are fixed at $10 a year, on advancing their cause. My entire point is instead of saying 'increases revenues' you should say 'increases the money it budgets toward advancing its cause.'
  - skywhopper 12y ago
    I had the same experience. After I let my membership expire, I continued to receive solicitations from other organizations until I finally contacted the ACLU to ask that my personal information no longer be shared with other organizations. Remarkably, and to their credit, the solicitations from the ACLU and other groups did cease. However, despite my strong personal support of the ACLU's legal and political stands, I am not willing to submit myself to that level of junk mail and information sharing again.
  - lmm 12y ago
    Is there any other charity that acts differently?
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    I put them on my list of people I dontate to sometime last year, but I had the same experience as you. They utterly hassle you to the point of harassment once your "membership" begins to expire. A reminder email or letter, fine. Maybe even a courtesy phone call, I can see that. I've received no less than 7 or 8 letters from them, two or three phone calls, and I'm not sure how many emails because Google helpfully began filing them away as spam. At least NPR takes the hint. Once your membership lapses, you get a single email/letter from them.
- gumby 12y ago
  Are you not worried that joining the ACLU could lead to problems for you down the line?
  - Steuard 12y ago
    In what way? (I mean, yeah, far right wing reactionaries might take exception to it, but they probably wouldn't like a lot of other things I say or do, anyway.)
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Like what?
  - vidarh 12y ago
    If that's a real concern, then that should be even more reason to join or donate, as it would indicate the situation in the US is vastly worse than most assume.
  - jcromartie 12y ago
    What problems? The only people I know who look on the ACLU with scorn are right-wing Christian bigots. Screw them. What other things do you not do, in case it upsets wingnuts?
mempko 12y ago
What is remarkable is how the discussion is framed in the US. Why is it that killing a US citizen without trial terrible while deliberating whether killing a non citizen without trial is terrible not even part of the discussion? Obama's assasination program throws away 800 years of progress of civilizing the world.
- liotier 12y ago
  At least it is a start. Once the killing of US citizen without a trial is accepted as undesirable, then we will move on to attempting to have our compatriots reflect on the morality of killing foreigners. I do not see a problem with starting with a low hanging fruit to let our friends have a taste of some sort of morality before trying to convince them to climb the tree for more... That said, even if we some day manage to summon political will to regulate the use of violence by our government more strongly, violence of the threat thereof is an essential part of relations between human polities - framing it as uncivilized will not change that.
  - mbrutsch 12y ago
    > Once the killing of US citizen without a trial is accepted as undesirable Sadly, I suspect the wind will blow the other way on this one.
  - throwaway7767 12y ago
    > At least it is a start. Once the killing of US citizen without a trial is accepted as undesirable, then we will move on to attempting to have our compatriots reflect on the morality of killing foreigners I was under the impression that killing US citizens without a trial had been considered pretty much unthinkable until a few years ago, when your president allowed it. I may be mistaken, as I'm not from the US and so not immersed in the culture on a daily basis. If that's true, I would say that the current development is in the opposite direction of more restraint.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      > I was under the impression that killing US citizens without a trial had been considered pretty much unthinkable until a few years ago U.S. citizens were killed in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it is believed that some of the ones that went to fight for the Nazis were also killed by American soldiers on the battlefield.
dignati 12y ago
"I believe that killing an American citizen without a trial is an extraordinary concept and deserves serious debate." Opposed to killing anyone without a trial?
- halviti 12y ago
  War has gone on for as long as civilization has been around, it is not an extraordinary concept.
  - throwaway7767 12y ago
    That's not what is being discussed here. There is difference between a combat situation as part of warfare and targeted executions of induviduals outside of war.
    - clavalle 12y ago
      You must have a much clearer idea as to what 'combat situation' and 'targeted executions outside of war' means than me. Is it acceptable to bomb a tent of generals planning a campaign in the middle of a war?
      - pjc50 12y ago
        Yes; although war has rules. It's not clear whether this is part of a war or not. Is the United States at war with Yemen? No. Are the Yemenis being bombed civilians or military? Well, they're not the military of any particular state. We're in a murky territory here now, where the US gets to unilaterally declare war on individuals and deem them "not civilians" so it's ok to bomb them.
        clavalle 12y ago
        This is not a war with a state. That would be much more clear cut. We are clearly not at war with Yemen. Yemen, the state, is cooperating with US efforts in their country. The US gets to unilaterally go to war with individuals (that are part of a larger movement that relies on extreme violence against non-combatant civilians to achieve its goals, it is important to remember) because they've unilaterally gone to war with the US.
jasallen 12y ago
I am no lawyer, and so can't say anything about a legal opinion. But from a "my way of looking at it" perspective: someone who is actively trying to kill american citizens, and is, meanwhile, preventing himself from being tried by hiding in a foreign country should be stopped. Better for all involved if he's stopped without killing, but stopped either way. I would draw the comparison to someone holding a hostage at gunpoint. You don't put that person on trial before final judgment comes down.
- Ygg2 12y ago
  On the other hand, US has a sloppy record of actually getting the guy they wanted. http://www.policymic.com/articles/89135/8-stories-of-civilians-killed-by-u-s-drone-strikes-in-yemen http://www.policymic.com/articles/89135/8-stories-of-civilia... I would draw the comparison of someone holding a hostage at gunpoint, so cops go and kill an innocent guy in neighborhood that is pretty much unrelated with the person holding the first as hostage. I'd definitely want to setup a way to judge those incompetent cops.
  - jasallen 12y ago
    I don't disagree you there. Especially where such high stakes are involved everyone must be held accountable.
- ewestern 12y ago
  "someone who the state claims, without presenting evidence, is actively trying to kill american citizens" FTFY
- mikeash 12y ago
  The whole point of trials is to establish that the person performed the crimes that they are alleged to have performed. You can't assume they're guilty and then declare that not holding a trial is OK. Bob is actively trying to kill Americans and is avoiding trial by hiding in a foreign country. Joe is a peaceful guy who's falsely accused of trying to kill Americans, and lives in a foreign country for unrelated reasons. By what system do you propose we distinguish between Bob and Joe?
moskie 12y ago
The context that these discussions often lack is that there are situations where it is considered acceptable for law enforcement to kill a suspect. An armed hostage taker being taken out by a sniper, for example. What is the rule that says that could be OK, but killing Anwar Awl Alaki is not? Superficially, the rule seems like it would be based on whether capturing / arresting the person is not feasible, but doing nothing has a high probability of resulting in that person being involved in a violent crime (killing of hostages, participating in a terrorist act). Unfortunately, deciding if that is true for a given situation is of course a judgment call. But to simplify it down to "the government shouldn't kill people without a trial" overlooks some things that need to be considered. Could he have been feasibly arrested? What would have been the consequences of doing nothing?
- wehadfun 12y ago
  Excellent point.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- mseebach 12y ago
  There's an very important distinction between killing someone to prevent imminent bodily harm and putting someone on a kill list and sending the drone out to get them. It's the distinctly non-imminent premeditation that makes the difference.
  - clavalle 12y ago
    How does one get on a kill list? I could be wrong but I'd tend to believe it is because they are a clear threat and not because one has poor choice in friends or makes suspicious trips to unusual destinations.
    - Crito 12y ago
      If that was their justification, why would they be so ashamed of it? Why would they hide this justification from us?
throwaway7767 12y ago
Executing non-US citizens is fine, apparently. I don't see anyone objecting to that. It's another fine example of US exceptionalism. Note that I'm talking about executions, not killing as part of warfare.
- craigching 12y ago
  > Executing non-US citizens is fine, apparently. I don't see anyone objecting to that. It's another fine example of US exceptionalism. Not all Americans agree with this behavior.
- clavalle 12y ago
  >Note that I'm talking about executions, not killing as part of warfare. I'd be curious to see where you, personally, would draw the line. Is it not warfare to kill someone that is plotting on harming civilians as a primary means to advance their agenda?
  - throwaway7767 12y ago
    > Is it not warfare to kill someone that is plotting on harming civilians as a primary means to advance their agenda? I think you just defined a whole lot of law enforcement operations as warfare. I do not agree with that definition, nor do I suspect many would. If the US had invaded Yemen and they were targeting specific people to help with their strategic objectives there, that would be a more fuzzy area, and the morality of that would depend on the situation of the invasion. As it stands, the drones are executing people in countries the US is not at war with. That said, where do you personally draw the line? Now, take that situation and imagine that instead of the US sending robots to kill muslim preachers, that some place like Iran or China had sent in robots to the US to kill a US citizen like Jim Bell (after all, he has advocated for assassination markets, so the same argument can be made that he is dangerous). Is the line in the same place in that situation?
    - clavalle 12y ago
      >the drones are executing people in countries the US is not at war with. Because we are not fighting a state. We are cooperating with these countries not fighting them. They don't have the resources (or the resources are unreliable) to treat these things as law enforcement problems. And I'd personally draw the line at a clear and credible threat. If they demonstrate they have the will and have, or are actively trying to obtain, the means to attack. For example, if someone speaks about killing people then amasses a bunch of explosives, it is time to act. If someone seems to be acting in a command capacity to people that have the means and will, as previously described, it is time to act. On the other hand, if someone happens to be in contact with someone in that first group but does not seem to be aiding them (passing commands, gathering materials etc.) then that person should not be targeted. If we could go to these countries and tell them "Listen, we have intelligence telling us that this person is training people and sending them into this country to kill people. Could you go grab them for questioning and maybe gather some evidence and put them on trial?" and if they would act on that, that'd be great. I'd be all for that. But that seems like wishful thinking more than anything.
norswap 12y ago
Or any human being that isn't an immediate threat for that matter.
DanielBMarkham 12y ago
Interesting bit of political wonkery ahead. There's a way to get rid of a president. It's called impeachment. Impeachment is a political trial for political crimes. Basically looking like an idiot. It's not a criminal trial. Why is that important? Because we don't criminalize politicians doing their job. It's expected that the president do things which would never be acceptable if an average citizen does them: kidnapping spies, blowing up things here or there, sending warships in harm's way, and whatnot. We don't call these crimes because in point of fact somebody has to make decisions like this. It's part of the job. (I'm not approving of any of this, simply trying to explain how the system works.) So I agree with Mr. Paul's first sentence, with one change: "I BELIEVE that the systemic killing of American citizens without a trial is an extraordinary concept and deserves serious debate." Or, in other words, killing any American overseas without a trial is wrong all the time, but I understand presidents do things that are extraordinary. One of the jobs of Congress is to provide a check on his power. (Congress has made a terrible mess of this oversight responsibility. Congress is ultimately at blame in all of this for giving a wink and nob when it was started.) What's, for lack of a better term, evil, is the creation of a system to automatically do things that bend the rules to this degree without the president having any skin in the game at all. He gets this crazy-broad power, and he's not risking his office when the decision is made to use it. That is insane. And I do not believe a debate has anything at all to do with it. It's wrong. It should stop. There's nothing more to be said. If the president wants to go off on some bone-headed assassination adventure, he won't be the first one, Congress should debate and take action depending on the specifics. But if he wants to create a system whereby robots are used to assassinate citizens abroad on a regular basis without trial? There's no amount of debate in the world that's going to make that work.
rayiner 12y ago
I appreciate the views of folks who ask questions like "why is it legal to kill anyone without trial?" But I think these arguments overlook important considerations. Courts only have power to the extent that the political branches of government choose to abide by their pronouncements. When courts overreach, there is the possibility they will be ignored, and as a result such overreach poses a grave threat to the rule of law. It is for this reason that it's important not to confuse the two separate questions of: "is this bad?" and "is this illegal?" In the U.S., the founders expressly rejected the idea that courts and judges might bind the hands of the President and Congress in matters of foreign policy and security. The judicial branch is, by design, a domestic institution. When acting abroad, the American President, advised by Congress, retains all the powers that are inherent in an independent sovereignty. And that includes killing outsiders who pose a security threat. Sovereign nations have always had that power, and I doubt there are any that would explicitly disclaim that power. Clearly, though, the powers the President can project domestically are circumscribed by the Constitution and can be reviewed by the courts. The touchy part is figuring out how to draw the lines: where does the jurisdiction of the court end and the sovereign foreign-affairs authority of the President begin? It is very dangerous to draw the line in a place that overextends the courts' inherently domestic authority and jurisdiction. I propose that it's better to kill a terrorist like Al Awalki by drone strike than to degrade the judicial system by trying him in abstentia. Trials in abstentia degenerate to farce, and are illegal under federal law (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/06/when_can_a_defendant_be_tried_in_absentia.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...) as well as under the laws governing the International Criminal Court. Nothing in the Constitution says that due process always requires a trial. Saying that Al Awalki has due process rights, and that those rights are satisfied in his peculiar circumstances by consideration of an executive tribunal, does less violence to the rule of law than trying him in abstentia.
- prutschman 12y ago
  > that includes killing outsiders who pose a security threat Is the executive then to get free reign, unrestrained by the judiciary, to declare a citizen an "outsider"?
mkhalil 12y ago
8 Stories of Civilians Killed by U.S. Drone Strikes in Yemen http://www.policymic.com/articles/89135/8-stories-of-civilians-killed-by-u-s-drone-strikes-in-yemen http://www.policymic.com/articles/89135/8-stories-of-civilia...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rollthehard6 12y ago
Worth a listen on this topic - Radiolab on the 60 words that define 'The War on Terror'. Includes a discussion on the group who sit and discuss who ends up on this kill list. http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/#13999071198021&%7B%22ready%22%3Atrue%7D http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/#13999071198021&%7B%2...
yaakov34 12y ago
Wasn't there some kind of unpleasantness around the time of Abe Lincoln's presidency, resulting in the killing of several hundred thousand American citizens without trials? It really irks me when this kind of discussion is focused on US citizenship, as if nobody else counts. Either the US government has a right to decide that somebody somewhere is so dangerous that he needs killin', and then go whack him, or it doesn't. I don't see how it's not OK on due process grounds, but only if the guy is a US citizen. Anyway, this kind of rule is likely to result in some kind of a circular arrangement, in which the US whacks undesirable French citizens and France whacks German citizens in return and then Germany reciprocates by killing US citizens, and hey - no rules are broken. BTW, I can't say that I am against all government-ordered killings in principle. Governments conduct wars and military operations, sometimes with good reasons. And wars don't just result in killing people "on the battlefield", as Rand Paul says. Suppose that some terrorist group is preparing an attack somewhere - are you supposed to send special forces after them with a death sentence from some court in their pocket?
- skywhopper 12y ago
  I agree that there should be no distinction between citizens and non-citizens. Targeted assassinations, no matter who they are of, are morally disgusting. Using drones to do the assassinations--which inevitably results in mistakes and "collateral damage" deaths of innocents--is even worse. We retroactively justify terrorists' behavior when we use the same methods (albeit with slightly different tools) against the people who happen to surround them.
  - notahacker 12y ago
    Targeted assassinations are much less morally disgusting than sacrificing thousands of one's own soldiers and hundreds of thousands of foreigners - noncombatants and unwilling conscripts amongst them - in a declared war. The reason why political leaders generally argue assassination is less justifiable as foreign policy than conventional military intervention has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with them being more likely to be on the casualty list.
lazyjones 12y ago
Hasn't the CIA been doing this for decades anyway, like many other secret services around the world?
Shivetya 12y ago
It won't stop until the same officials allowing this, supporting this, are put on a similarly effective list. Technology has simply given the tool to anyone and its a matter of time before that threat becomes far to real against even safe targets
transfire 12y ago
"I don’t doubt that Mr. Awlaki committed treason and deserved the most severe punishment" And yet has anyone heard exactly what is was that he did? All I ever heard is that he put out propaganda about how America sucks. But I have never actually heard any of it.
- mikeyouse 12y ago
  It was everywhere when he died; His propaganda wasn't that America sucks, it was a call to take up arms against US targets. He exchanged emails with the Ft. Hood shooter, he advised the underwear bomber, he was not a good guy.. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/30/anwar-al-awlaki-video-blogs http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/30/anwar-al-awlaki...
fredgrott 12y ago
The problem is its not civil law, this under war law..as terrorists are considered not to have the same rights as combatants under the Geneva Convention.. Spies are under similar guidelines..sometimes they get trials sometimes they just get shot
- fleitz 12y ago
  Yes, and we've always been at war with east asia.
qwerta 12y ago
> Show us the legal case for executing __a United States citizen__ without a trial. It kind of says it is OK to kill non-citizen untermensch. I find this attitude very common and highly disturbing. Russian army managed to takeover Crimea with only handful of deaths. If you count death toll, US army looks like bunch of happy-trigger-amateur-cowboys.
jbapple 12y ago
From the article: "I don’t doubt that Mr. Awlaki committed treason and deserved the most severe punishment." Why does the author not doubt it? I doubt it until I have seen evidence. It is my understanding that Awlaki called for the murder of American civilians, but I do not believe that meets the legal standard of treason. The Obama administration has said that Awlaki was involved "operationally" in planning attacks on Americans, but the national security state has said all manner of speech constitutes operational involvement in terrorism, including Javed Iqbal's broadcast of Al Manar, a Hezbollah-controlled television channel, and the Humanitarian Law Project's attempts to teach peaceful conflict resolution strategies to a terrorist group.
- vidarh 12y ago
  He is actively pre-empting attempts to derail his primary point. It's possible he also believes that Awlaki committed treason, but more importantly, by making that point without any kind of moderation, he's making it substantially harder to accuse him of wanting to be soft on those horrible, evil terrorists. He's also implicitly making the argument for a trial stronger: If it is entirely certain that Awlaki committed treason, then surely the government has clear evidence that would have made a trial a formality?
hawkharris 12y ago
I hesitate to make historical comparisons because many are melodramatic, but I think it's fair to relate this time to another dark period in U.S. history. The word "terrorist" has become so powerful that it supersedes judicial processes. In early 2002, federal agents harassed many of my friends who belonged to a mosque in the Northeast. Some were detained and abused by police officers. Sadly, this behavior has continued, further evolving into a vehicle for racism and religious prejudice. I recall a story on HN several months ago about a startup investor who was detained in an airport all day because he was Muslim. If you don't like your neighbors because of their names, their traditions, the color of their skin or the smell of their food, you can simply call them terrorists. That word, even when it is devoid of concrete evidence, has the power to ruin someone's life. In this specific sense, our modern fear of "terrorists" reminds me of the power of the word "communist" during the 1950s, in the McCarthy era. Eventually, most Americans saw McCarthy's so-called Red Scare for what it was: an excuse to act based on personal prejudices and political agendas.
jqm 12y ago
I seriously wonder why the rest of the world tolerates the US drone program. Sure, they probably Mostly get bad guys, but the implications and ramifications of being able to kill anyone in the world at any time by remote control at the whim of a select group of people are too large to ignore. The fact that some of them are US citizens is just legal icing on the cake. It is asked very often but bears repeating one more time... Why is it that people feel the need to take up arms against the US? I don't think this is a namby pamby kumbaya question either but is directly relevant to our long term security.
xname 12y ago
Wow! I mean WOW!!! You guys must read those comments on New York Times website. Especially those NYT/Readers' Picks. WOW! Really EYE OPENING! WOW!
DanBC 12y ago
A lot of people are asking for trial by jury so that we can be sure he is guilty. That doesn't seem so fail-proof seeing as maybe 4% of death row inmates have been wrongfully convicted.
wahsd 12y ago
Dear world: We can execute you all day long without regard, but we can of course not execute an American, because that would be horrible. I hope I am no longer around when a different, tyrannical regime develops a technology that gives them an edge that negates all of our defenses and we are subject to random drone attacks on our neighbors, communities, cities. Face it, we are an unprincipled, unjust tyranny. We are more like than not any other tyrannical regime that had legal protections in place for the approved group of people, while totally negating those rules for people that weren't part of the approved group. It's nothing more than present day, larger scale primitive tribal society. It's pathetic. If we want extrajudicial executions, we need transparent and verifiable proof and capital punishment for abuses and even mistakes. The higher the stakes, the more costly the mistakes. If everyone is so confident that there is nothing wrong with their actions, why are they not stepping forward demanding capital punishment for any transgressions.

219 points by applecore 12y ago

This is incidental to the main argument, but I think it's important enough to observe here: Since that letter, I have learned more. The American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to all senators on May 6, noting that in the view of the Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein, “there are at least eleven OLC opinions on the targeted killing or drone program.” I joined the ACLU a couple years ago in part because I'd read a lot about the various illegal and immoral activities parts of the government has done and didn't see an obvious way for me, a somewhat normal, random guy, to do much about it. There's a lot of (justified) Internet outrage over the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki, widespread spying, and so forth. But without converting outrage to action, the outrage means very little. Does my $50 do much on its own? Perhaps not. But it means something.

donohoe 12y ago
I've been meaning to join as a member for a long time. https://www.aclu.org/secure/our-civil-liberties-are-under-attack-1?ms=hackernews https://www.aclu.org/secure/our-civil-liberties-are-under-at...
durkie 12y ago
I once gave them a similar amount, probably 10 years ago. They have since spent at least that amount on postage and call center labor asking me for more money. This greatly discourages me from wanting to give more to them, even though I like what they do with their non-outreach funding (however small that may be)
- danielweber 12y ago
  I made the error of giving Public Citizen a few bucks a few years ago. They since sold my name to dozens of other organizations. There was absolutely no chance to opt-out when I donated. It's amazing how quickly an NGO can burn off its good will.
- arjie 12y ago
  Well, that sounds unlikely given that [their Charity Navigator information](http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3247#.U3DgkfldV5Y http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary...). Perhaps you over-estimate the cost of fundraising. 12 cents of each dollar are spent on fundraising, and 84 cents of each dollar are spent on their aims. It is annoying that they keep calling you, though.
  - jeffdavis 12y ago
    Those numbers are averages. Maybe they get a lot of larger donors or recurring donors. It's quite possible that they wasted his entire donation trying to convert him from a $50 donor into a $1000+ donor.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      Possibly. But if so, they do that for a simple reason: "Upselling" past donors will in most situations have substantially higher conversion rates than obtaining new donors. It may not have been cost-effective in his specific case, but it's likely a cost-effective use of their resources on average.
      - jeffdavis 12y ago
        But it's a bait-and-switch. The donor expects that their $50 contribution will be 90%+ spent on the cause, but it's not.
- termain 12y ago
  My understanding that much of the legal work is donated so outreach seems like a reasonable expenditure, particularly if it increases revenues or brings in more donated legal work.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    If "it increases revenue" is one of the better reasons a charity can offer for an activity, I think they should stop it. The thought behind that is that they should be maximizing their effectiveness not their revenues, and so should have lots of better things to discuss.
  - genericuser 12y ago
    As the other poster I believe was trying to point out 'if it increases revenue' is the wrong way to justify spending money to make more money. Since revenue is not profit, and most charities are non-profits anyway, more revenue does not necessarily equate to more money for betterment of the causes the charity serves. As a complete hypothetical scenario examining two extremes which hopefully do not exist. Charity B.A.D. could spend 100% of its revenue on seeking more donations and maintaining existing ones, leaving no resources for actually doing anything related to their cause, or distributing non monetary resources donated even. But they double revenue every year. Charity P.O.R. Could spend 100% of its revenue, which are fixed at $10 a year, on advancing their cause. My entire point is instead of saying 'increases revenues' you should say 'increases the money it budgets toward advancing its cause.'
- skywhopper 12y ago
  I had the same experience. After I let my membership expire, I continued to receive solicitations from other organizations until I finally contacted the ACLU to ask that my personal information no longer be shared with other organizations. Remarkably, and to their credit, the solicitations from the ACLU and other groups did cease. However, despite my strong personal support of the ACLU's legal and political stands, I am not willing to submit myself to that level of junk mail and information sharing again.
- lmm 12y ago
  Is there any other charity that acts differently?
- Karunamon 12y ago
  I put them on my list of people I dontate to sometime last year, but I had the same experience as you. They utterly hassle you to the point of harassment once your "membership" begins to expire. A reminder email or letter, fine. Maybe even a courtesy phone call, I can see that. I've received no less than 7 or 8 letters from them, two or three phone calls, and I'm not sure how many emails because Google helpfully began filing them away as spam. At least NPR takes the hint. Once your membership lapses, you get a single email/letter from them.
gumby 12y ago
Are you not worried that joining the ACLU could lead to problems for you down the line?
- Steuard 12y ago
  In what way? (I mean, yeah, far right wing reactionaries might take exception to it, but they probably wouldn't like a lot of other things I say or do, anyway.)
- mikeash 12y ago
  Like what?
- vidarh 12y ago
  If that's a real concern, then that should be even more reason to join or donate, as it would indicate the situation in the US is vastly worse than most assume.
- jcromartie 12y ago
  What problems? The only people I know who look on the ACLU with scorn are right-wing Christian bigots. Screw them. What other things do you not do, in case it upsets wingnuts?

mempko 12y ago

What is remarkable is how the discussion is framed in the US. Why is it that killing a US citizen without trial terrible while deliberating whether killing a non citizen without trial is terrible not even part of the discussion? Obama's assasination program throws away 800 years of progress of civilizing the world.

liotier 12y ago
At least it is a start. Once the killing of US citizen without a trial is accepted as undesirable, then we will move on to attempting to have our compatriots reflect on the morality of killing foreigners. I do not see a problem with starting with a low hanging fruit to let our friends have a taste of some sort of morality before trying to convince them to climb the tree for more... That said, even if we some day manage to summon political will to regulate the use of violence by our government more strongly, violence of the threat thereof is an essential part of relations between human polities - framing it as uncivilized will not change that.
- mbrutsch 12y ago
  > Once the killing of US citizen without a trial is accepted as undesirable Sadly, I suspect the wind will blow the other way on this one.
- throwaway7767 12y ago
  > At least it is a start. Once the killing of US citizen without a trial is accepted as undesirable, then we will move on to attempting to have our compatriots reflect on the morality of killing foreigners I was under the impression that killing US citizens without a trial had been considered pretty much unthinkable until a few years ago, when your president allowed it. I may be mistaken, as I'm not from the US and so not immersed in the culture on a daily basis. If that's true, I would say that the current development is in the opposite direction of more restraint.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > I was under the impression that killing US citizens without a trial had been considered pretty much unthinkable until a few years ago U.S. citizens were killed in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it is believed that some of the ones that went to fight for the Nazis were also killed by American soldiers on the battlefield.

dignati 12y ago

"I believe that killing an American citizen without a trial is an extraordinary concept and deserves serious debate." Opposed to killing anyone without a trial?

halviti 12y ago
War has gone on for as long as civilization has been around, it is not an extraordinary concept.
- throwaway7767 12y ago
  That's not what is being discussed here. There is difference between a combat situation as part of warfare and targeted executions of induviduals outside of war.
  - clavalle 12y ago
    You must have a much clearer idea as to what 'combat situation' and 'targeted executions outside of war' means than me. Is it acceptable to bomb a tent of generals planning a campaign in the middle of a war?
    - pjc50 12y ago
      Yes; although war has rules. It's not clear whether this is part of a war or not. Is the United States at war with Yemen? No. Are the Yemenis being bombed civilians or military? Well, they're not the military of any particular state. We're in a murky territory here now, where the US gets to unilaterally declare war on individuals and deem them "not civilians" so it's ok to bomb them.
      - clavalle 12y ago
        This is not a war with a state. That would be much more clear cut. We are clearly not at war with Yemen. Yemen, the state, is cooperating with US efforts in their country. The US gets to unilaterally go to war with individuals (that are part of a larger movement that relies on extreme violence against non-combatant civilians to achieve its goals, it is important to remember) because they've unilaterally gone to war with the US.

jasallen 12y ago

I am no lawyer, and so can't say anything about a legal opinion. But from a "my way of looking at it" perspective: someone who is actively trying to kill american citizens, and is, meanwhile, preventing himself from being tried by hiding in a foreign country should be stopped. Better for all involved if he's stopped without killing, but stopped either way. I would draw the comparison to someone holding a hostage at gunpoint. You don't put that person on trial before final judgment comes down.

Ygg2 12y ago
On the other hand, US has a sloppy record of actually getting the guy they wanted. http://www.policymic.com/articles/89135/8-stories-of-civilians-killed-by-u-s-drone-strikes-in-yemen http://www.policymic.com/articles/89135/8-stories-of-civilia... I would draw the comparison of someone holding a hostage at gunpoint, so cops go and kill an innocent guy in neighborhood that is pretty much unrelated with the person holding the first as hostage. I'd definitely want to setup a way to judge those incompetent cops.
- jasallen 12y ago
  I don't disagree you there. Especially where such high stakes are involved everyone must be held accountable.
ewestern 12y ago
"someone who the state claims, without presenting evidence, is actively trying to kill american citizens" FTFY
mikeash 12y ago
The whole point of trials is to establish that the person performed the crimes that they are alleged to have performed. You can't assume they're guilty and then declare that not holding a trial is OK. Bob is actively trying to kill Americans and is avoiding trial by hiding in a foreign country. Joe is a peaceful guy who's falsely accused of trying to kill Americans, and lives in a foreign country for unrelated reasons. By what system do you propose we distinguish between Bob and Joe?

moskie 12y ago

The context that these discussions often lack is that there are situations where it is considered acceptable for law enforcement to kill a suspect. An armed hostage taker being taken out by a sniper, for example. What is the rule that says that could be OK, but killing Anwar Awl Alaki is not? Superficially, the rule seems like it would be based on whether capturing / arresting the person is not feasible, but doing nothing has a high probability of resulting in that person being involved in a violent crime (killing of hostages, participating in a terrorist act). Unfortunately, deciding if that is true for a given situation is of course a judgment call. But to simplify it down to "the government shouldn't kill people without a trial" overlooks some things that need to be considered. Could he have been feasibly arrested? What would have been the consequences of doing nothing?

wehadfun 12y ago
Excellent point.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
mseebach 12y ago
There's an very important distinction between killing someone to prevent imminent bodily harm and putting someone on a kill list and sending the drone out to get them. It's the distinctly non-imminent premeditation that makes the difference.
- clavalle 12y ago
  How does one get on a kill list? I could be wrong but I'd tend to believe it is because they are a clear threat and not because one has poor choice in friends or makes suspicious trips to unusual destinations.
  - Crito 12y ago
    If that was their justification, why would they be so ashamed of it? Why would they hide this justification from us?

throwaway7767 12y ago

Executing non-US citizens is fine, apparently. I don't see anyone objecting to that. It's another fine example of US exceptionalism. Note that I'm talking about executions, not killing as part of warfare.

craigching 12y ago
> Executing non-US citizens is fine, apparently. I don't see anyone objecting to that. It's another fine example of US exceptionalism. Not all Americans agree with this behavior.
clavalle 12y ago
>Note that I'm talking about executions, not killing as part of warfare. I'd be curious to see where you, personally, would draw the line. Is it not warfare to kill someone that is plotting on harming civilians as a primary means to advance their agenda?
- throwaway7767 12y ago
  > Is it not warfare to kill someone that is plotting on harming civilians as a primary means to advance their agenda? I think you just defined a whole lot of law enforcement operations as warfare. I do not agree with that definition, nor do I suspect many would. If the US had invaded Yemen and they were targeting specific people to help with their strategic objectives there, that would be a more fuzzy area, and the morality of that would depend on the situation of the invasion. As it stands, the drones are executing people in countries the US is not at war with. That said, where do you personally draw the line? Now, take that situation and imagine that instead of the US sending robots to kill muslim preachers, that some place like Iran or China had sent in robots to the US to kill a US citizen like Jim Bell (after all, he has advocated for assassination markets, so the same argument can be made that he is dangerous). Is the line in the same place in that situation?
  - clavalle 12y ago
    >the drones are executing people in countries the US is not at war with. Because we are not fighting a state. We are cooperating with these countries not fighting them. They don't have the resources (or the resources are unreliable) to treat these things as law enforcement problems. And I'd personally draw the line at a clear and credible threat. If they demonstrate they have the will and have, or are actively trying to obtain, the means to attack. For example, if someone speaks about killing people then amasses a bunch of explosives, it is time to act. If someone seems to be acting in a command capacity to people that have the means and will, as previously described, it is time to act. On the other hand, if someone happens to be in contact with someone in that first group but does not seem to be aiding them (passing commands, gathering materials etc.) then that person should not be targeted. If we could go to these countries and tell them "Listen, we have intelligence telling us that this person is training people and sending them into this country to kill people. Could you go grab them for questioning and maybe gather some evidence and put them on trial?" and if they would act on that, that'd be great. I'd be all for that. But that seems like wishful thinking more than anything.

norswap 12y ago

Or any human being that isn't an immediate threat for that matter.

DanielBMarkham 12y ago

Interesting bit of political wonkery ahead. There's a way to get rid of a president. It's called impeachment. Impeachment is a political trial for political crimes. Basically looking like an idiot. It's not a criminal trial. Why is that important? Because we don't criminalize politicians doing their job. It's expected that the president do things which would never be acceptable if an average citizen does them: kidnapping spies, blowing up things here or there, sending warships in harm's way, and whatnot. We don't call these crimes because in point of fact somebody has to make decisions like this. It's part of the job. (I'm not approving of any of this, simply trying to explain how the system works.) So I agree with Mr. Paul's first sentence, with one change: "I BELIEVE that the systemic killing of American citizens without a trial is an extraordinary concept and deserves serious debate." Or, in other words, killing any American overseas without a trial is wrong all the time, but I understand presidents do things that are extraordinary. One of the jobs of Congress is to provide a check on his power. (Congress has made a terrible mess of this oversight responsibility. Congress is ultimately at blame in all of this for giving a wink and nob when it was started.) What's, for lack of a better term, evil, is the creation of a system to automatically do things that bend the rules to this degree without the president having any skin in the game at all. He gets this crazy-broad power, and he's not risking his office when the decision is made to use it. That is insane. And I do not believe a debate has anything at all to do with it. It's wrong. It should stop. There's nothing more to be said. If the president wants to go off on some bone-headed assassination adventure, he won't be the first one, Congress should debate and take action depending on the specifics. But if he wants to create a system whereby robots are used to assassinate citizens abroad on a regular basis without trial? There's no amount of debate in the world that's going to make that work.

rayiner 12y ago

I appreciate the views of folks who ask questions like "why is it legal to kill anyone without trial?" But I think these arguments overlook important considerations. Courts only have power to the extent that the political branches of government choose to abide by their pronouncements. When courts overreach, there is the possibility they will be ignored, and as a result such overreach poses a grave threat to the rule of law. It is for this reason that it's important not to confuse the two separate questions of: "is this bad?" and "is this illegal?" In the U.S., the founders expressly rejected the idea that courts and judges might bind the hands of the President and Congress in matters of foreign policy and security. The judicial branch is, by design, a domestic institution. When acting abroad, the American President, advised by Congress, retains all the powers that are inherent in an independent sovereignty. And that includes killing outsiders who pose a security threat. Sovereign nations have always had that power, and I doubt there are any that would explicitly disclaim that power. Clearly, though, the powers the President can project domestically are circumscribed by the Constitution and can be reviewed by the courts. The touchy part is figuring out how to draw the lines: where does the jurisdiction of the court end and the sovereign foreign-affairs authority of the President begin? It is very dangerous to draw the line in a place that overextends the courts' inherently domestic authority and jurisdiction. I propose that it's better to kill a terrorist like Al Awalki by drone strike than to degrade the judicial system by trying him in abstentia. Trials in abstentia degenerate to farce, and are illegal under federal law (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/06/when_can_a_defendant_be_tried_in_absentia.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...) as well as under the laws governing the International Criminal Court. Nothing in the Constitution says that due process always requires a trial. Saying that Al Awalki has due process rights, and that those rights are satisfied in his peculiar circumstances by consideration of an executive tribunal, does less violence to the rule of law than trying him in abstentia.

prutschman 12y ago
> that includes killing outsiders who pose a security threat Is the executive then to get free reign, unrestrained by the judiciary, to declare a citizen an "outsider"?

mkhalil 12y ago

8 Stories of Civilians Killed by U.S. Drone Strikes in Yemen http://www.policymic.com/articles/89135/8-stories-of-civilians-killed-by-u-s-drone-strikes-in-yemen http://www.policymic.com/articles/89135/8-stories-of-civilia...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

rollthehard6 12y ago

Worth a listen on this topic - Radiolab on the 60 words that define 'The War on Terror'. Includes a discussion on the group who sit and discuss who ends up on this kill list. http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/#13999071198021&%7B%22ready%22%3Atrue%7D http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/#13999071198021&%7B%2...

yaakov34 12y ago

Wasn't there some kind of unpleasantness around the time of Abe Lincoln's presidency, resulting in the killing of several hundred thousand American citizens without trials? It really irks me when this kind of discussion is focused on US citizenship, as if nobody else counts. Either the US government has a right to decide that somebody somewhere is so dangerous that he needs killin', and then go whack him, or it doesn't. I don't see how it's not OK on due process grounds, but only if the guy is a US citizen. Anyway, this kind of rule is likely to result in some kind of a circular arrangement, in which the US whacks undesirable French citizens and France whacks German citizens in return and then Germany reciprocates by killing US citizens, and hey - no rules are broken. BTW, I can't say that I am against all government-ordered killings in principle. Governments conduct wars and military operations, sometimes with good reasons. And wars don't just result in killing people "on the battlefield", as Rand Paul says. Suppose that some terrorist group is preparing an attack somewhere - are you supposed to send special forces after them with a death sentence from some court in their pocket?

skywhopper 12y ago
I agree that there should be no distinction between citizens and non-citizens. Targeted assassinations, no matter who they are of, are morally disgusting. Using drones to do the assassinations--which inevitably results in mistakes and "collateral damage" deaths of innocents--is even worse. We retroactively justify terrorists' behavior when we use the same methods (albeit with slightly different tools) against the people who happen to surround them.
- notahacker 12y ago
  Targeted assassinations are much less morally disgusting than sacrificing thousands of one's own soldiers and hundreds of thousands of foreigners - noncombatants and unwilling conscripts amongst them - in a declared war. The reason why political leaders generally argue assassination is less justifiable as foreign policy than conventional military intervention has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with them being more likely to be on the casualty list.

lazyjones 12y ago

Hasn't the CIA been doing this for decades anyway, like many other secret services around the world?

Shivetya 12y ago

It won't stop until the same officials allowing this, supporting this, are put on a similarly effective list. Technology has simply given the tool to anyone and its a matter of time before that threat becomes far to real against even safe targets

transfire 12y ago

"I don’t doubt that Mr. Awlaki committed treason and deserved the most severe punishment" And yet has anyone heard exactly what is was that he did? All I ever heard is that he put out propaganda about how America sucks. But I have never actually heard any of it.

mikeyouse 12y ago
It was everywhere when he died; His propaganda wasn't that America sucks, it was a call to take up arms against US targets. He exchanged emails with the Ft. Hood shooter, he advised the underwear bomber, he was not a good guy.. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/30/anwar-al-awlaki-video-blogs http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/30/anwar-al-awlaki...

fredgrott 12y ago

The problem is its not civil law, this under war law..as terrorists are considered not to have the same rights as combatants under the Geneva Convention.. Spies are under similar guidelines..sometimes they get trials sometimes they just get shot

fleitz 12y ago
Yes, and we've always been at war with east asia.

qwerta 12y ago

> Show us the legal case for executing __a United States citizen__ without a trial. It kind of says it is OK to kill non-citizen untermensch. I find this attitude very common and highly disturbing. Russian army managed to takeover Crimea with only handful of deaths. If you count death toll, US army looks like bunch of happy-trigger-amateur-cowboys.

jbapple 12y ago

From the article: "I don’t doubt that Mr. Awlaki committed treason and deserved the most severe punishment." Why does the author not doubt it? I doubt it until I have seen evidence. It is my understanding that Awlaki called for the murder of American civilians, but I do not believe that meets the legal standard of treason. The Obama administration has said that Awlaki was involved "operationally" in planning attacks on Americans, but the national security state has said all manner of speech constitutes operational involvement in terrorism, including Javed Iqbal's broadcast of Al Manar, a Hezbollah-controlled television channel, and the Humanitarian Law Project's attempts to teach peaceful conflict resolution strategies to a terrorist group.

vidarh 12y ago
He is actively pre-empting attempts to derail his primary point. It's possible he also believes that Awlaki committed treason, but more importantly, by making that point without any kind of moderation, he's making it substantially harder to accuse him of wanting to be soft on those horrible, evil terrorists. He's also implicitly making the argument for a trial stronger: If it is entirely certain that Awlaki committed treason, then surely the government has clear evidence that would have made a trial a formality?

hawkharris 12y ago

I hesitate to make historical comparisons because many are melodramatic, but I think it's fair to relate this time to another dark period in U.S. history. The word "terrorist" has become so powerful that it supersedes judicial processes. In early 2002, federal agents harassed many of my friends who belonged to a mosque in the Northeast. Some were detained and abused by police officers. Sadly, this behavior has continued, further evolving into a vehicle for racism and religious prejudice. I recall a story on HN several months ago about a startup investor who was detained in an airport all day because he was Muslim. If you don't like your neighbors because of their names, their traditions, the color of their skin or the smell of their food, you can simply call them terrorists. That word, even when it is devoid of concrete evidence, has the power to ruin someone's life. In this specific sense, our modern fear of "terrorists" reminds me of the power of the word "communist" during the 1950s, in the McCarthy era. Eventually, most Americans saw McCarthy's so-called Red Scare for what it was: an excuse to act based on personal prejudices and political agendas.

jqm 12y ago

I seriously wonder why the rest of the world tolerates the US drone program. Sure, they probably Mostly get bad guys, but the implications and ramifications of being able to kill anyone in the world at any time by remote control at the whim of a select group of people are too large to ignore. The fact that some of them are US citizens is just legal icing on the cake. It is asked very often but bears repeating one more time... Why is it that people feel the need to take up arms against the US? I don't think this is a namby pamby kumbaya question either but is directly relevant to our long term security.

xname 12y ago

Wow! I mean WOW!!! You guys must read those comments on New York Times website. Especially those NYT/Readers' Picks. WOW! Really EYE OPENING! WOW!

DanBC 12y ago

A lot of people are asking for trial by jury so that we can be sure he is guilty. That doesn't seem so fail-proof seeing as maybe 4% of death row inmates have been wrongfully convicted.

wahsd 12y ago

Dear world: We can execute you all day long without regard, but we can of course not execute an American, because that would be horrible. I hope I am no longer around when a different, tyrannical regime develops a technology that gives them an edge that negates all of our defenses and we are subject to random drone attacks on our neighbors, communities, cities. Face it, we are an unprincipled, unjust tyranny. We are more like than not any other tyrannical regime that had legal protections in place for the approved group of people, while totally negating those rules for people that weren't part of the approved group. It's nothing more than present day, larger scale primitive tribal society. It's pathetic. If we want extrajudicial executions, we need transparent and verifiable proof and capital punishment for abuses and even mistakes. The higher the stakes, the more costly the mistakes. If everyone is so confident that there is nothing wrong with their actions, why are they not stepping forward demanding capital punishment for any transgressions.