5 ms·

Redacted memo justifying drone strikes on US citizens [pdf]

45 points by bjfish 12y ago

xamdam 12y ago
I'm honestly lost around the US citizen issue. I mean since Ted Bundy was a US citizen he should be more protected during an act of violence? Or are citizens of other countries valued less? If someone is an active combatant for whatever the "other side" is, and we're ok using drones, then it's on as far as I'm concerned. (I'm a US citizen for context)
- VonGuard 12y ago
  I think the issue is whether or not the government can "disappear" people. In other countries, we've already been doing this for decades, but in theory, at least, it doesn't happen to US citizens. If the US is allowed to just send a drone strike on a US citizen, who is otherwise entitled to due process, the thinking is that the government can just ignore due process and start killing people from afar. Bad precedent.
  - ambiate 12y ago
    As a democracy and regardless of citizenship, doesn't _everyone_ deserve due process? The first thought that crosses my mind are Canadian terrorist mounties with snow wolves, snow mobiles, alcohol and aboots. Would they be droned by the US or captured and trialed?
    - SatoshiPacioli 12y ago
      > As a democracy and regardless of citizenship, doesn't _everyone_ deserve due process? Not if they are an imminent threat.
      - rational-future 12y ago
        >> Not if they are an imminent threat to the corrupted establishment.
    - microcolonel 12y ago
      No public evidence that this has happened yet, though I wouldn't doubt that it's been done. (terrorist mountie here, funded by illegal maple syrup trafficking if you really must know ;)
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - anonbanker 12y ago
      It's "a-boat." "Aboot" is a south park joke.
- ambiate 12y ago
  I feel the same way. This is a display of the veil of ignorance that shrouds war and citizens. US citizens are OK slaughtering 'others' (the faceless and nameless) with drones. When it comes to 'it could be me', it turns into a great outcry against the force. 'It can only be them.' The thought really needs to be 'if XYZ occurs, anyone deserves to be droned.' Perhaps, we would be more sympathetic for the others.
  - josephv 12y ago
    The military has been operating outside of the law using executive action attacking citizens of sovereign countries with no declaration of war for a long time. We keep electing weak congressional members that let it happen, and we won't impeach presidents based on this, so it will keep happening. It's one of the core libertarian beliefs.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      The military is operating very much within the law. You use "declaration of war" as a legal criterion, but that is not the applicable criterion. Rather, the Congress themselves have authorized the use of military force explicitly, both in Afghanistan (and against Al Qaeda and associated movements generally) and in Iraq. But the military is only a single (albeit important) branch of the government, whereas a declaration of war would encompass a vast accumulation of government power to the Executive across a wide range of the branches of government. There is a reason Congress has not declared war (even assuming one could literally declare war on "terrorism"): It would grant the President powers far in excess of that which Congress wishes. So in fact you have it completely opposite; Congress refuses to declare war because refusing this declaration constrains the power of the President.
- josephv 12y ago
  Who determines who's an enemy combatant? That's always the core issue. We should not trust the man behind the curtain to always tell us who needs to be killed by a drone with no trial.
  - SatoshiPacioli 12y ago
    Nope, that's not the core issue. The core issue is what constitutes an "imminent threat". If they are not an imminent threat then there is existing international and domestic laws that should be followed (i.e. arrest, extradition, trial, evidence, lawyers, etc). If they are an imminent threat then there is existing international and domestic laws that should be followed (i.e. it's ok to shoot and kill someone who is trying to light your house on fire - it should be ok to drone them too). The whole citizen/noncitizen debate was a rhetorical construct created by Rand Paul to show the moral outrage that is droning someone who is not an imminent threat.
- jqm 12y ago
  Well, Ted Bundy got a trial. But you are right, a police officer would have shot him had he caught Ted in the act and no one would think badly of it. I suppose this is the difference. If the person being struck by a drone actually had a machine gun and was using it when he was struck than yes... a crime was being stopped with lethal force. If he is at home asleep and you send a drone to kill him at a time he is not engaged in the act maybe you are veering into extra-judicial execution. And that is why this is problematic.
- forgottenpass 12y ago
  US Citizens anywhere in the world, and non-citizens in the US are afforded legal protections unavailable to anyone else. I don't remember exactly what they are, but I think it's whether or not the protections in the Constitution apply, Greenwald has written about it if you want to do some googling.
ciderpunx 12y ago
The actual memo begins on page 67
- PMan74 12y ago
  Thanks, I gave up after a few pages
panarky 12y ago
Since when are redactions shown as white space on a white background? Is this standard procedure, or is it to deliberately obscure what has been censored?
peterkelly 12y ago
Could someone from the US please explain the whole thing behind US citizens/foreigners being considered deserving of different levels of protection with regards to human rights? Are those of us not blessed with US citizenship somehow less "worthy"? Is it really the case that conducting surveillance or drone strikes against foreigners is any different, morally and ethically, than those against US citizens? To be honest, from an outsider's view this comes across as a very arrogant and entitled attitude. I most certainly sympathise with and share the outrage many Americans feel about their government's abuses of human rights, but there seems to be a view among some quarters that it's only because they're Americans that it's a problem, and forget everyone else. I've also seen this attitude in my own country (Australia) with regards to some of our regional neighbours. What happened to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? I realise that to some that these questions may come across as trolling, but I'm genuinely curious about how we arrived at this state of affairs.
- TallGuyShort 12y ago
  >> I'm genuinely curious about how we arrived at this state of affairs Most Americans have no idea this is happening, and those who bother to vote don't make informed votes on issues like this. As a naturalized US citizen, I'm not exactly your typical US citizen, but I'm as disgusted by this as you are.
- jeangenie 12y ago
  It seems arrogant and entitled to many Americans as well, the issue is that unelected and unaccountable government officials don't care.
- toufka 12y ago
  This separation is entirely how US citizens invest powers into their own government. It's not so much that certain people have rights that others do not, rather, US citizens will permit certain parts of their own government to carry out some actions against 'others', that it does not parmit to carry out against itself. It's why the US has the Posse Comitatus Act - to have police deal with disturbances amongst citizens, and military deal with disturbances with other nations. There are separate rules when dealing with one's own bosses (even when different from the status quo), then when dealing with one's enemies. There is a significant difference in how one expects a hostile, unknown, or even an allied group to behave, and your own group. The US government is its citizens, so it would be quite dysfunctional (as a government) for it to become adversarial to itself in a way that does not occur were it to become adversarial to those whom it is not. The idea that the government (of its people) can in any way justify killing those same people without due cause quickly leads to the government no longer being of the people (in a way that targeted killing of non-citizens does not).

45 points by bjfish 12y ago

I'm honestly lost around the US citizen issue. I mean since Ted Bundy was a US citizen he should be more protected during an act of violence? Or are citizens of other countries valued less? If someone is an active combatant for whatever the "other side" is, and we're ok using drones, then it's on as far as I'm concerned. (I'm a US citizen for context)

VonGuard 12y ago
I think the issue is whether or not the government can "disappear" people. In other countries, we've already been doing this for decades, but in theory, at least, it doesn't happen to US citizens. If the US is allowed to just send a drone strike on a US citizen, who is otherwise entitled to due process, the thinking is that the government can just ignore due process and start killing people from afar. Bad precedent.
- ambiate 12y ago
  As a democracy and regardless of citizenship, doesn't _everyone_ deserve due process? The first thought that crosses my mind are Canadian terrorist mounties with snow wolves, snow mobiles, alcohol and aboots. Would they be droned by the US or captured and trialed?
  - SatoshiPacioli 12y ago
    > As a democracy and regardless of citizenship, doesn't _everyone_ deserve due process? Not if they are an imminent threat.
    - rational-future 12y ago
      >> Not if they are an imminent threat to the corrupted establishment.
  - microcolonel 12y ago
    No public evidence that this has happened yet, though I wouldn't doubt that it's been done. (terrorist mountie here, funded by illegal maple syrup trafficking if you really must know ;)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - anonbanker 12y ago
    It's "a-boat." "Aboot" is a south park joke.
ambiate 12y ago
I feel the same way. This is a display of the veil of ignorance that shrouds war and citizens. US citizens are OK slaughtering 'others' (the faceless and nameless) with drones. When it comes to 'it could be me', it turns into a great outcry against the force. 'It can only be them.' The thought really needs to be 'if XYZ occurs, anyone deserves to be droned.' Perhaps, we would be more sympathetic for the others.
- josephv 12y ago
  The military has been operating outside of the law using executive action attacking citizens of sovereign countries with no declaration of war for a long time. We keep electing weak congressional members that let it happen, and we won't impeach presidents based on this, so it will keep happening. It's one of the core libertarian beliefs.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    The military is operating very much within the law. You use "declaration of war" as a legal criterion, but that is not the applicable criterion. Rather, the Congress themselves have authorized the use of military force explicitly, both in Afghanistan (and against Al Qaeda and associated movements generally) and in Iraq. But the military is only a single (albeit important) branch of the government, whereas a declaration of war would encompass a vast accumulation of government power to the Executive across a wide range of the branches of government. There is a reason Congress has not declared war (even assuming one could literally declare war on "terrorism"): It would grant the President powers far in excess of that which Congress wishes. So in fact you have it completely opposite; Congress refuses to declare war because refusing this declaration constrains the power of the President.
josephv 12y ago
Who determines who's an enemy combatant? That's always the core issue. We should not trust the man behind the curtain to always tell us who needs to be killed by a drone with no trial.
- SatoshiPacioli 12y ago
  Nope, that's not the core issue. The core issue is what constitutes an "imminent threat". If they are not an imminent threat then there is existing international and domestic laws that should be followed (i.e. arrest, extradition, trial, evidence, lawyers, etc). If they are an imminent threat then there is existing international and domestic laws that should be followed (i.e. it's ok to shoot and kill someone who is trying to light your house on fire - it should be ok to drone them too). The whole citizen/noncitizen debate was a rhetorical construct created by Rand Paul to show the moral outrage that is droning someone who is not an imminent threat.
jqm 12y ago
Well, Ted Bundy got a trial. But you are right, a police officer would have shot him had he caught Ted in the act and no one would think badly of it. I suppose this is the difference. If the person being struck by a drone actually had a machine gun and was using it when he was struck than yes... a crime was being stopped with lethal force. If he is at home asleep and you send a drone to kill him at a time he is not engaged in the act maybe you are veering into extra-judicial execution. And that is why this is problematic.
forgottenpass 12y ago
US Citizens anywhere in the world, and non-citizens in the US are afforded legal protections unavailable to anyone else. I don't remember exactly what they are, but I think it's whether or not the protections in the Constitution apply, Greenwald has written about it if you want to do some googling.

ciderpunx 12y ago

The actual memo begins on page 67

PMan74 12y ago
Thanks, I gave up after a few pages

panarky 12y ago

Since when are redactions shown as white space on a white background? Is this standard procedure, or is it to deliberately obscure what has been censored?

peterkelly 12y ago

Could someone from the US please explain the whole thing behind US citizens/foreigners being considered deserving of different levels of protection with regards to human rights? Are those of us not blessed with US citizenship somehow less "worthy"? Is it really the case that conducting surveillance or drone strikes against foreigners is any different, morally and ethically, than those against US citizens? To be honest, from an outsider's view this comes across as a very arrogant and entitled attitude. I most certainly sympathise with and share the outrage many Americans feel about their government's abuses of human rights, but there seems to be a view among some quarters that it's only because they're Americans that it's a problem, and forget everyone else. I've also seen this attitude in my own country (Australia) with regards to some of our regional neighbours. What happened to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? I realise that to some that these questions may come across as trolling, but I'm genuinely curious about how we arrived at this state of affairs.

TallGuyShort 12y ago
>> I'm genuinely curious about how we arrived at this state of affairs Most Americans have no idea this is happening, and those who bother to vote don't make informed votes on issues like this. As a naturalized US citizen, I'm not exactly your typical US citizen, but I'm as disgusted by this as you are.
jeangenie 12y ago
It seems arrogant and entitled to many Americans as well, the issue is that unelected and unaccountable government officials don't care.
toufka 12y ago
This separation is entirely how US citizens invest powers into their own government. It's not so much that certain people have rights that others do not, rather, US citizens will permit certain parts of their own government to carry out some actions against 'others', that it does not parmit to carry out against itself. It's why the US has the Posse Comitatus Act - to have police deal with disturbances amongst citizens, and military deal with disturbances with other nations. There are separate rules when dealing with one's own bosses (even when different from the status quo), then when dealing with one's enemies. There is a significant difference in how one expects a hostile, unknown, or even an allied group to behave, and your own group. The US government is its citizens, so it would be quite dysfunctional (as a government) for it to become adversarial to itself in a way that does not occur were it to become adversarial to those whom it is not. The idea that the government (of its people) can in any way justify killing those same people without due cause quickly leads to the government no longer being of the people (in a way that targeted killing of non-citizens does not).