4 ms·

"disposition matrix", although I don't think getting on that list even evolves a court, just an advisory panel made up people picked by the executive breach, bu

"disposition matrix", although I don't think getting on that list even evolves a court, just an advisory panel made up people picked by the executive breach, but it is hard to know for sure since it is all considered secret. EDIT: how about a counter argument instead of reflexive down votes -- yeah it sucks our government kills US citizens without much due process but that's the truth, try not to avert your eyes.

harryh 12y ago
I think that most people are comfortable with the idea that if you join a foreign militia and take up arms against the United States you forfeit certain protections of citizenship. Certainly not everyone agrees with this but that's the counter argument you asked for.
- shit_parade 12y ago
  How about Abdulrahman al-Awlaki or Samir Khan? I suppose they didn't even get the semblance of due process, just were at the wrong place at the wrong time. EDIT: parent asked for a source for secret courts, the "disposition matrix" is just that, except it doesn't even involve the judicial branch only the executive and has resulted in the deaths of 3 Americans, one purposely and two 'accidentally' whether killing Americans on purpose or on accident is worse or better I'll leave as an exercise for the readers imagination.
  - harryh 12y ago
    Neither of those people were intentionally killed. Certainly we can argue about larger strategy and when the cost of collateral damage is worth military action but that discussion is orthogonal to one about a loss of due process.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    No evidence exists that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was deliberately targeted, which makes him a bad example of the impact of a "disposition matrix". The target of the strike that killed him was Ibrahim al-Banna, an operational member of al Qaeda, who was among the confirmed dead in the strike.
- mikeash 12y ago
  That's an argument for why it's justified, but just because it's justified doesn't mean it's not a counterexample to the claim that US citizens always get normal civilian trials.
- dreamweapon 12y ago
  If you join a foreign militia and take up arms against the United States ..." The whole point of due process is that the pesky "if" part needs to be proven. Otherwise your argument is entirely circular.
rhino369 12y ago
The kill list isn't a trial. Until the enemy combatants surrender they are fair targets of war. It is no different than Roosevelt ordering a bombing raid on a German train depot during WWII.

harryh 12y ago

I think that most people are comfortable with the idea that if you join a foreign militia and take up arms against the United States you forfeit certain protections of citizenship. Certainly not everyone agrees with this but that's the counter argument you asked for.

shit_parade 12y ago
How about Abdulrahman al-Awlaki or Samir Khan? I suppose they didn't even get the semblance of due process, just were at the wrong place at the wrong time. EDIT: parent asked for a source for secret courts, the "disposition matrix" is just that, except it doesn't even involve the judicial branch only the executive and has resulted in the deaths of 3 Americans, one purposely and two 'accidentally' whether killing Americans on purpose or on accident is worse or better I'll leave as an exercise for the readers imagination.
- harryh 12y ago
  Neither of those people were intentionally killed. Certainly we can argue about larger strategy and when the cost of collateral damage is worth military action but that discussion is orthogonal to one about a loss of due process.
- tptacek 12y ago
  No evidence exists that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was deliberately targeted, which makes him a bad example of the impact of a "disposition matrix". The target of the strike that killed him was Ibrahim al-Banna, an operational member of al Qaeda, who was among the confirmed dead in the strike.
mikeash 12y ago
That's an argument for why it's justified, but just because it's justified doesn't mean it's not a counterexample to the claim that US citizens always get normal civilian trials.
dreamweapon 12y ago
If you join a foreign militia and take up arms against the United States ..." The whole point of due process is that the pesky "if" part needs to be proven. Otherwise your argument is entirely circular.

rhino369 12y ago

The kill list isn't a trial. Until the enemy combatants surrender they are fair targets of war. It is no different than Roosevelt ordering a bombing raid on a German train depot during WWII.