8 ms·

It almost sounds like a farce: 1. US Gov. passes Executive Order permitting: a) the Depart. of State to identify individuals/organizations as "terrorist/terro

It almost sounds like a farce: 1. US Gov. passes Executive Order permitting: a) the Depart. of State to identify individuals/organizations as "terrorist/terrorist organizations"; b) the CIA to put individuals (including citizens) on targeted kills lists; c) the FBI to put people on a Terrorist Watchlist; 2. There is no oversight to the process and the Government is not required to disclose who is on the list(s) or even the criteria to get on the list; 3. When the first (known) CIA targeted killing of a US citizen failed and the US Gov. was sued, the Court dismissed the case finding the Courts can not perform a Constitutional review, because such an Executive Order falls squarely within the Political Question Doctrine; 4. When the Government successfully killed the US Citizen, using a military drone strike, in a Country the US was not authorized to use the Use of Force (under International Law)...no one cared because the individual was Muslim and the Government assured us this was a guy with ties to Islamic terrorism. In fact, you can see in this article the such an attitude permeates all the way to the EFF, where one of EFF's Senior Staff Attorneys says he wouldn't have issue if Hammond had ties to Al-Qaida or Islamic State, but this is solely concerning to them because it is likely Anonymous; 5. Now the US Gov. has again extended their new found powers and now people are split...but what is really alarming is the people who think, well this guy was a piece of shit, so the Gov. got it right...no harm no foul. This is not end of the World, sky is falling commentary, but wake up. It is never OK for any Government to have secret lists of any kind much less kill lists...and it is even more telling that the US Gov. refuses to disclose the lists (in full, certainly some lists are public) or the criteria/process.

tzs 12y ago
> When the Government successfully killed the US Citizen, using a military drone strike, in a Country the US was not authorized to use the Use of Force (under International Law) Which international law address US use of force in Yemen?
- will_brown 12y ago
  >Which international law address US use of force in Yemen? Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is the general framework prohibiting the use of force between member States.[1] The UN Charter itself only provides for 2 exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force: a. Self-Defense and b. with prior authorization from the UN Security Council. However, much like the US Constitution, which has been interpreted and extended through legislation and through the Courts, the UN Charter has been interpreted through treaties, UN Resolutions, votes of the UN Security Council, case studies and customary law/international norms. To put this in context, put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine a foreign national located in the US, who has been deemed a terrorist or equivalent by another country, and that country performs some kind of military/quasi-military/drone strike within the jurisdictional integrity of the US. Separately, there is an entire second half to the analysis, so once the use of force is authorized (jus ad bellum), then we need to apply the actual laws of war (jus in bello). The easiest way to convey this is to say that the response must be proportionate to the act that authorized the use of force and otherwise use of certain weapons are prohibited, such as those that fail to distinguish between civilian and combatant (e.g. prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons). Looking at the facts of this particular case, it would appear problematic that before the CIA drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the US botched at least a first attempt that resulted in the killing of 2 unintended targets. [1] http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/principles.shtml http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/principles.shtml
  - cjensen 12y ago
    In your opinion, why does "a. Self-Defense" not apply when killing a member of an organization which has killed thousands inside the US?
    - spot 12y ago
      FYI that's called "revenge".
      - cjensen 12y ago
        It is not revenge to stop someone who has done you harm, openly states they will do you more harm, and has made additional attempts to cause you harm.
    - speeder 12y ago
      And about killing hundreds of thousands of unrelated civilians? So, Al-Quaeda allegedly killed 10.000 people. US then kill about 9000 more of its own citizens to kill some million and a bit more abroad, and cause some everlasting civil wars, including some that made Al-Quaeda, affiliates, allies and splinter organizations stronger, not weaker.
      - cjensen 12y ago
        Parent comment was specific that killing a member of AQ in a specific instance was unlawful under International Law. I was asking about that specific instance, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Clarify?
    - will_brown 12y ago
      Read Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The violation of international law results from the failure to "respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States." So again think of my hypothetical above, with the shoe on the other foot. If another country conducts a military strike in the US, and violates US sovereignty, the claim of self-defense must be against the US (i.e. the member State), not a claim of self-defense against an individual residing in the US. Essentially, there would be no rule of law if Use of Force was authorized, under the self-defense, so long as one Country alleges a terrorist is residing in another Country. To be fair, under these specific set of facts, it may have been possible to make a case before the Security Council and have the Security Council authorize the Use of Force. However, that is the whole point the US circumvented the established law and acted unilaterally, when they could have gone to the UN presented their case and had a vote on the merits.
shit_parade 12y ago
Don't worry about it, because you too can go volunteer for the Whitehouse and make America a better place one tech at a time.
rayiner 12y ago
> 4. When the Government successfully killed the US Citizen, using a military drone strike, in a Country the US was not authorized to use the Use of Force (under International Law)...no one cared because the individual was Muslim and the Government assured us this was a guy with ties to Islamic terrorism. It's pretty offensive to muslims to lead your characterization of al-Awlaki with the fact that he was Muslim, rather than the fact that he went to Yemen and took up arms against the United States while inciting violence against the country. U.S. Citizenship isn't a blanket immunity against U.S. military action. It's certain that the U.S. killed Americans who went and fought for the Nazis in Europe. Few people would challenge the validity of such actions. Does it become wrong because you make a list instead of doing it indiscriminately? And ultimately, it's deeply counter-productive to try and lump people like Hammond together with people like al-Awlaki. Military action against foreign aggressors is a fundamental right of sovereign nations. People will not give it up. If you tell them that such actions must be subject to "law" all you'll accomplish is distorting and diluting the law to accommodate the sorts of actions that must be taken against foreign aggressors. The law should not try to insert itself into foreign military matters. It's not a fight it will win, and it will be the downfall of the law.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  > It's pretty offensive to muslims to lead your characterization of al-Awlaki with the fact that he was Muslim It may very well be. But OP is not saying al-Awlaki was a muslim and therefore not worth bothing about raising a stink regarding constitutional issues, but rather that large swathes of population believe that. Heck were are dealing with people who thought (and still think I bet) that Saddam Hussein was "al Qaeda". > The law should not try to insert itself into foreign military matters. All is well except for those pesky constitutional issues. If this was Russia or other countries which (I am guessing here), do not have the same rights in their Constitutions as US, there wouldn't be much to discuss. So "foreign military matters" needs to be discussed a bit more. See, US is not at war with Pakistan. It is friendly with its government and allegedly is allowed by said Pakistani govt. to pick off people on the ground to kill using drones. So this needs to be talked about. Are we at war? Is "Global War On Terror" now an conventient cop-out to let us do this there without those Constitutional rights people getting into our business? What if those tribes in the mountains brought drones and started dropping anthrax boms or grenades on our cities, would we understand that as an equitable retribution and so on.

tzs 12y ago

> When the Government successfully killed the US Citizen, using a military drone strike, in a Country the US was not authorized to use the Use of Force (under International Law) Which international law address US use of force in Yemen?

will_brown 12y ago
>Which international law address US use of force in Yemen? Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is the general framework prohibiting the use of force between member States.[1] The UN Charter itself only provides for 2 exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force: a. Self-Defense and b. with prior authorization from the UN Security Council. However, much like the US Constitution, which has been interpreted and extended through legislation and through the Courts, the UN Charter has been interpreted through treaties, UN Resolutions, votes of the UN Security Council, case studies and customary law/international norms. To put this in context, put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine a foreign national located in the US, who has been deemed a terrorist or equivalent by another country, and that country performs some kind of military/quasi-military/drone strike within the jurisdictional integrity of the US. Separately, there is an entire second half to the analysis, so once the use of force is authorized (jus ad bellum), then we need to apply the actual laws of war (jus in bello). The easiest way to convey this is to say that the response must be proportionate to the act that authorized the use of force and otherwise use of certain weapons are prohibited, such as those that fail to distinguish between civilian and combatant (e.g. prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons). Looking at the facts of this particular case, it would appear problematic that before the CIA drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the US botched at least a first attempt that resulted in the killing of 2 unintended targets. [1] http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/principles.shtml http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/principles.shtml
- cjensen 12y ago
  In your opinion, why does "a. Self-Defense" not apply when killing a member of an organization which has killed thousands inside the US?
  - spot 12y ago
    FYI that's called "revenge".
    - cjensen 12y ago
      It is not revenge to stop someone who has done you harm, openly states they will do you more harm, and has made additional attempts to cause you harm.
  - speeder 12y ago
    And about killing hundreds of thousands of unrelated civilians? So, Al-Quaeda allegedly killed 10.000 people. US then kill about 9000 more of its own citizens to kill some million and a bit more abroad, and cause some everlasting civil wars, including some that made Al-Quaeda, affiliates, allies and splinter organizations stronger, not weaker.
    - cjensen 12y ago
      Parent comment was specific that killing a member of AQ in a specific instance was unlawful under International Law. I was asking about that specific instance, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Clarify?
  - will_brown 12y ago
    Read Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The violation of international law results from the failure to "respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States." So again think of my hypothetical above, with the shoe on the other foot. If another country conducts a military strike in the US, and violates US sovereignty, the claim of self-defense must be against the US (i.e. the member State), not a claim of self-defense against an individual residing in the US. Essentially, there would be no rule of law if Use of Force was authorized, under the self-defense, so long as one Country alleges a terrorist is residing in another Country. To be fair, under these specific set of facts, it may have been possible to make a case before the Security Council and have the Security Council authorize the Use of Force. However, that is the whole point the US circumvented the established law and acted unilaterally, when they could have gone to the UN presented their case and had a vote on the merits.

shit_parade 12y ago

Don't worry about it, because you too can go volunteer for the Whitehouse and make America a better place one tech at a time.

rayiner 12y ago

> 4. When the Government successfully killed the US Citizen, using a military drone strike, in a Country the US was not authorized to use the Use of Force (under International Law)...no one cared because the individual was Muslim and the Government assured us this was a guy with ties to Islamic terrorism. It's pretty offensive to muslims to lead your characterization of al-Awlaki with the fact that he was Muslim, rather than the fact that he went to Yemen and took up arms against the United States while inciting violence against the country. U.S. Citizenship isn't a blanket immunity against U.S. military action. It's certain that the U.S. killed Americans who went and fought for the Nazis in Europe. Few people would challenge the validity of such actions. Does it become wrong because you make a list instead of doing it indiscriminately? And ultimately, it's deeply counter-productive to try and lump people like Hammond together with people like al-Awlaki. Military action against foreign aggressors is a fundamental right of sovereign nations. People will not give it up. If you tell them that such actions must be subject to "law" all you'll accomplish is distorting and diluting the law to accommodate the sorts of actions that must be taken against foreign aggressors. The law should not try to insert itself into foreign military matters. It's not a fight it will win, and it will be the downfall of the law.

rdtsc 12y ago
> It's pretty offensive to muslims to lead your characterization of al-Awlaki with the fact that he was Muslim It may very well be. But OP is not saying al-Awlaki was a muslim and therefore not worth bothing about raising a stink regarding constitutional issues, but rather that large swathes of population believe that. Heck were are dealing with people who thought (and still think I bet) that Saddam Hussein was "al Qaeda". > The law should not try to insert itself into foreign military matters. All is well except for those pesky constitutional issues. If this was Russia or other countries which (I am guessing here), do not have the same rights in their Constitutions as US, there wouldn't be much to discuss. So "foreign military matters" needs to be discussed a bit more. See, US is not at war with Pakistan. It is friendly with its government and allegedly is allowed by said Pakistani govt. to pick off people on the ground to kill using drones. So this needs to be talked about. Are we at war? Is "Global War On Terror" now an conventient cop-out to let us do this there without those Constitutional rights people getting into our business? What if those tribes in the mountains brought drones and started dropping anthrax boms or grenades on our cities, would we understand that as an equitable retribution and so on.