Drones and Executive Power
While I share concerns about Obama’s assertions of executive power, let’s remember that a Vice President once gave an order to kill dozens of completely innocent Americans on American soil, and we all supported him. On 9/11, Dick Cheney gave an order to shoot down Flight 93. It was clear that everyone on the plane was likely going to die anyway, and take out perhaps thousands more innocent Americans along with them.
Perhaps this is what Eric Holder has in mind when he talks about drone strikes on American soil?
Ding.
Patterico (9c670f) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:43 amDrone strikes – Sounds like work stoppages by union and federal workers.
Bill M (c7f289) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:45 amhmmm
thinking
what were the hijackers aiming for exactly
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:49 amI expect Obama to execute a drone strike on Trump’s house.
Domestic drone strikes will be like domestic “SWATting”.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:52 amIf Holder was thinking about a Flight 93 scenario, it would be easy enough to detail the types of situations he felt they would need this power. Since he hasn’t done so, I think Holder simply wants the option to do what he (and Obama) wants when they want to whom they want the way they want. In other words, dictatorial powers.
steve (e7e6c7) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:22 amThat’s not what I read. A NORAD worker wrote a book in which he claims they asked the President for authority to shoot down a fifth plane from Canada, that was mistakenly left off all manifests. The answer came back that he would not authorize it but would give that power to the head of NORAD. The head of NORAD said no. If the head of NORAD said yes, they would have shot down an innocent plane.
CrustyB (69f730) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:29 amshooting down innocent planes is probably the worstest thing you could ever do
I wonder how many of the obamawhores cheerleading for death from the skies oppose the death penalty
just curious
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:33 amGreetings:
And Eric Holder is an honorable man, no ???
11B40 (670da6) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:38 amThe thing that bothered me about Holder’s letter is that he never directly addressed when the President could authorize a drone strike against a US citizen on US soil. In the final paragraph he only talked about when the President could authorize the use of military force within US territory and used the Pearl Harbor attack and 9/11 as examples.
That’s hardly on point. The first was a sustained air attack by a foreign military force. In other words, an invasion.
I can’t believe that anyone ever thought a President didn’t have the authority to use military force within US territory to repel an invasion. That’s not some new authority; article IV section 4 of the Constitution specifically mentions repelling invasions.
9/11 is closer to the mark because of course the majority of the people on those planes were American citizens. That would have been known at the time. But it still comes under heading of a sustained attack although unlike Pearl Harbor perpetrated by people unknown. As I recall ATC reported those piloting the planes were speaking in heavily accented English.
And what may to some may seem a trivial point, I don’t see what air attack has to do with the question of drone strikes anyway. I don’t think anyone would doubt the authority to scramble fighters under the same circumstances as Bush did on 9/11. But drones are useless in that situation; they’re only good for ground attack.
So the question still remains unanswered. When would it be permissible to kill via drone strike a US citizen on US soil. As in on the ground where the citizen can be captured and we’ve been capturing them for over 230 years now.
All in all I found Holder’s letter disturbing largely because it was just so much babble.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:44 am“…an innocent plane.”
If that plane had a right-wing, it obviously could not be innocent.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:45 amWhen would it be permissible to kill via drone strike a US citizen on US soil.
When one is a member of the 1% and not paying their Fair-Share!
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:47 amDomestic drones are controlled primarily by law enforcement — the Department of Homeland Security, the Border Patrol, and state/local law enforcement — although the military also flies domestic drones. All are theoretically limited to surveillance, although Holder’s letter suggests to me that’s no longer the case.
I’m concerned how Holder’s theory might work in a 9/11-type situation. Who decides which entity should respond, and how do we control that response? In the 9/11 example, Cheney authorized the military to shoot down Flight 93 — not civilian government agencies or law enforcement — something that makes sense to me for both control reasons and accountability.
But it’s one thing to have military jets located at specific bases tasked to respond. It’s another to have thousands and thousands of multi-jurisdictional, multi-agency drones on stand-by. Certainly, this multitude of drones makes it more likely there can be an response but I’m not sure they make an effective response more likely. Instead, I think this means there is a much greater likelihood there will be a drone response, whether or not it’s effective or useful.
Furthermore, Obama’s reliance on drones suggests it’s not only tempting but almost addictive to have access to weapons like this. I fear a policy like this means drones will become the answer to every domestic problem, just as they have become Obama’s answer to every foreign policy problem.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:50 amI agree with steve @5. Holder was essentially telling Rand in his letter which said nothing that the Senate doesn’t deserve a coherent response. Holder has demonstrated his contempt for the concept of Congressional oversight of him and his department several times, and by his letter I take it he’s expressing that same contempt. How dare a Senator demand to know when they can use this new power.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:50 amLets let them come up with their own reasoning, shall we? If Holder was thinking of a flight 93 scenario, it wouldn’t be hard for him to articulate it. The fact that he won’t articulate it proves to me that his intentions are malicious.
We should all be afraid of this. An assassination program that is entirely unaccountable is the antithesis of freedom.
Ghost (2d8874) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:51 amRemember some years ago that golfer, Jerry Pate, I believe was his name. Remember the plane flew on auto pilot across half the country because the passengers and crew died shortly after take off? Would you want this plane shot down? There were fighters escorting this plane before it ran out of fuel.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:56 amCorrection, that was Payne Stewart, not Jerry Pate.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:58 amdoes anyone have a link to that al qaeda (sp?) guide to avoiding killdrones?
I think we all better post that up on the fridge
it’s the times what can i say
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:59 amNailed it. The drones will be incredibly useful when it’s time to confiscate the guns. Why risk officer lives when they can just Waco any dissidents with drone strikes?
And I’m sure the “patriot sheriffs” who have vowed not to take guns away from “law-abiding citizens,” (and in case you didn’t notice the weasel wording, if guns become illegal, there will be no “law-abiding” gun owners) will assuredly not use the drones either, right? Suddenly, those “patriots” are suspiciously quiet…
Ghost (2d8874) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:00 amA Flight 93 situation would never be addressed with a drone; the equipment is simply wrong for the mission.
have absolutely no problem with the use of attacks, whether by drones or manned, on enemies abroad, even if they are American citizens like Anwar al-Awlaki. Normal law enforcement means are simply not available in some situations.
And I completely support drone strikes at terrorist leadership over the heads of their low-level minions; these people are at war with us, whether we happen to be fighting in the countries in which they are hiding or not.
But when the target is on American soil, it’s a different matter: we have regular law enforcement means to go after a bad guy. Many might choose to resist arrest, and wind up dead anyway, but a drone attack doesn’t allow the bad guy to surrender.
The rational Dana (3e4784) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:06 amThen Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld made it clear that Flight 93 would have been shot down pursuant to the military’s Rules of Engagement — clear case of self-defense and/or defense of other innocents. Cf, DRJ’s comment, above. I believe that’s what we need from Holder who, in any event, will not have the final or even semi-final say in any use of deadly force by either military or civilian authorities, whether by drone, police sniper, incendiary tear-gas grenades, ….
nk (53646e) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:10 amJust to be clear, you’re okay with Obama usurping the bill of rights on this issue? If the right to due process can be infringed, what’s to stop the infringement of our freedom of religion or speech, or the right to bear arms?
And what about Anwar’s 16 year old American born son who Obama killed with a subsequent drone strike? He wasn’t collateral damage. Obama targeted the American teenage son of his ideological enemy, and that’s not considered an act of terrorism or even murder?
Ghost (2d8874) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:19 amSupposedly, it was Vice President Cheney who gave the order to intercept and destroy Flight 93, but the Vice President is not in the chain of command. After the Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary of Defense is the highest ranking civilian authority over the armed forces.
The nitpicking Dana (3e4784) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:23 amGhost wrote:
Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen, but he was living in Yemen, beyond the reach of our law enforcement, and beyond the reach of our manned military forces; he could not reasonably have been apprehended. If it is a choice between taking him out with a drone attack or allowing him to continue to lead and encourage terrorist attacks on Americans, I choose the former. President Obama did the right thing by ordering his death.
Due process stops at the end of American jurisdiction. What’s to stop the infringement of our first and second amendment rights? Those rights do not exist, in law, beyond the reach of our laws, and are, in fact, curtailed in many places even in the developed democracies.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:29 amIt amazes me how much information we are allowed to ponder these days, and then what some people do with it.
DJ6ual
DJ6ual (08c3a5) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:39 amhttp://www.pghcouponing.com
Don’t forget Waco.
MayBee (f32100) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:42 amCode Pink activist Medea Benjamin is pissed off at Obama for the drone attacks. She has an upcoming program on commie `Link TV’ about it.
If only Obama would do us all a favor, and set a drone on her! LOL! 🙂
Althor (8c5aa1) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:59 amSee, the problem here is that the president didn’t present evidence to a grand jury to get the authority; he decided, on his own without any accountability, that Anwar was guilty and sentenced him to death.
How can you possibly say that he did the right thing when, after he executed Anwar, he sent another drone to execute his teenage American son? What crimes was the 16 year old guilty of?
He’s using you; every time he gets a conservative to agree that the ends justify the means, the less he has to justify the means. You and I are both okay with Anwar’s life being cut short, as he was America’s enemy and all that. But if Obama can kill an American without due process and get you to cheer him for it, then he can kill any American without due process.
Obama doesn’t get to decide when to follow the rule f law and when to suspend it. Just like we don’t get to decide whether or not we follow the laws.
Ghost (2d8874) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:16 amIn the conduct of Foreign-Affairs, and military matters, the President is operating under his Constitutional Authority as Commander-In-Chief, and does not need to consult with anyone prior to taking an action that he determines is in the National Interest.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:20 amQuote: “In the conduct of Foreign-Affairs, and military matters, the President is operating under his Constitutional Authority as Commander-In-Chief, and does not need to consult with anyone prior to taking an action that he determines is in the National Interest.”
Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:20 am
It would be nice of such presidential zeal would inform all his other disastrous actions!
Althor (8c5aa1) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:24 amEven under the common law, no warrant was needed to stop a person committing a crime. Deadly force has always been used against American citizens by Americal law enforcement personnel without violating “due process.” Whether it is a local police officer shooting a criminal in the process of committing a crime or a wanted felon attempting to escape, the authorities do not have to go before a judge before acting. The authorities might want to secure such a warrant if the situation allows but that is their choice not a rule.
Michael M. Keohane (00a93d) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:25 amThis is a very dangerous precedent. This would be akin to Bush having the Dixie Chicks arrested because they weren’t in America when they bashed him. Americans dealing with the American government follow American rules. Otherwise, you could get arrested in America and transferred to Mexico to be tortured, because hey, we’re not in America anymore, so anything goes.
If Yemen had arrested and executed him, there would be no issue. This is the American government saying that American laws don’t apply to it when dealing with American citizens once they leave this piece of dirt.
The ends don’t justify the means. Ever.
Ghost (2d8874) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:28 am“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
– R. Reagan
Instead of opening books to learn history and government, they watched Law & Order instead.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:31 amEpic Fail!
The Dixie Chicks expressed an opinion that was, or was not, popular. Since their play-time on Country Radio, and the sales of their albums, subsequently tanked, we can assume that their opinion of GW was not all that popular among their fans.
Anwar al-Awlaki OTOH undertook to conspire to attack the United States, and to wage a fifth-column war within the Territorial Limits of the United States through proxy.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:35 amHe was killed for that taking-up of arms against his country, just as Johnny-Rebs were in the War of Northern Aggression(sic).
Ghost wrote:
And what grand jury would have any authority to order or approve of Mr al-Awlaki’s termination? The authority of a grand jury stops at the border of the jurisdiction.
Like it or not, President Obama is the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces, and he used our armed forces to end the threat posed by Mr al-Awlaki.
The President of the United States may issue any lawful order to the armed forces he wishes, and the Constitution specifically authorizes him as the deciding authority. You would have to contend that his order was somehow unlawful to be in the right, in which case every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine who was involved in the carrying out of that order is also criminally liable.
How can you possibly say that he did the right thing when, after he executed Anwar, he sent another drone to execute his teenage American son? What crimes was the 16 year old guilty of?
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:38 amOops: part of the Ghost’s comment which had been copied reappeared in my last, in error.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:38 amI haven’t seen this mentioned, but Rand Paul is filibustering Brennan’s confirmation. Apparently he didn’t like Holder’s answer either. He’s currently in hour two and he says he won’t stop until he gets a satisfactory answer from Obama. Which would be a simple “no, I can’t kill Americans on American soil.”
Not “trust me.”
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:39 amHere you go, Senator Paul. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3H18bkKyG8 Not safe in some public schools. ;).
nk (53646e) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:42 amGhost wrote:
If President Bush had had the Dixie Chicks arrested, then he’d have to actually have them charged with a crime. They weren’t fleeing our jurisdiction and they weren’t in hiding.
The part you don’t like is the fact that there is very little check on the authority of the Commander-in-Chief, especially outside of American jurisdiction, but that’s simply part of our Constitution. His judgement prevails, right up to the limit of the law. Even in a different system, the judgement of men is going to be involved in some way.
The serious Dana (3e4784) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:51 amGhost wrote:
If the ends don’t justify the means, then what does? 🙂
That may seem a flip response to you, but it isn’t: if a particular goal is not justifiable, then no means of obtaining it can be justified.
The philosophical Dana (3e4784) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:55 amDana, our trolls love the fact that Obama is unilaterally disengaging the US from the ME and Afghanistan, but they get all upset about his alternative uses of force projection when it compromises their little tin-pot Liberation Warriors.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:58 amAs I’ve observed before, I don’t think the issue is whether or not the administration can use military force against an active combatant.
The question is whether or not the administration can say “Go find Mr. X with your drone and kill him”. Choosing to target a specific individual is different from using military force against active combatants – where they are targeted at the moment by their actions/location/arms-bearing etc.
The 9/11 scenario has nothing to do with the latter.
SPQR (768505) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:59 ama Vice President once gave an order to kill dozens of completely innocent Americans on American soil, and we all supported him
That’s one way of putting it, and if it was put that way we wouldn’t have supported it.
I think the VP ordered the AF to engage a hijacked airliner being used as a guided missile and presumably to shoot it down if necessary before it was a danger to even more innocent Americans.
In one way it doesn’t make any difference what we say the president can or can’t do if there is no viable way of enforcing it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:21 amFixed that for you, since that seems to be the thing you can’t justify. You can accidentally copy the words, but you can’t address them? C’mon, now. We’re better than that here. I’m not moving any goalposts or changing the conversation. You say Anwar’s assassination was justified, and we disagree on that. That’s fine. Was Obama justified in killing a 16 year old boy?
Wrong question. If the ends justify the means, could anything be unjustified? Hell, Timmy McVeigh accheived his ends. And he actually told the public his reasoning! That’s more than we get from the 0.
And the ends are always seen as justified; we’re arguing about the means. We agree that Anwar needed to die. Just like McVeigh. Both were American terrorists, both were executed, but only one never got the chance to a trial AND had his son murdered.
Have I said this enough yet? Obama killed a 16 year old boy. But because his dad was a big mean jerk, that’s justifiable, or at the very least, not worthy of any thought at all.
Does Obama have the right to murder the children of American citizens without a trial? Answer that an stay fashionable.
Ghost (2d8874) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:25 amIf this was a knock at me, you have pegged me wrong, friend. And if you think Obama is unilaterally disengaging from the Middle East, I’ve got a nice bridge in New York you may be interested in. War is power, and Obama loves his power.
Ghost (2d8874) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:29 amWhen the last soldier leaves Iraq, and Afghanistan, and those countries devolve into a more intense chaos, we will have unilaterally left the area, because our Dear Leader refused to negotiate a satisfactory Status of Forces Agreement because he didn’t want to be there and have to make the hard decisions that that presence would have required.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:41 amInstead, he gets to fly some drones (presently) from some locations that are still agreeable to that, and to delegate to the CIA (Brennan/Donilon) who will be killed, so that there is no dirt under his impeccably manicured nails (goes with that pants-crease that David loves so well).
Obama is disinterested in other countries. He’d rather conduct his wars here at home. Against Chysler bond holders who are his terrorists. Enlisting the Latinos to help him punish their enemies.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:43 amIn the end, even if the President might claim the power to, say, use drones (or other military) to stop a dirty-bomb attack on Manhattan, if he started using them to cut down on freeway scofflaws there is always the impeachment option, either regular or short-form.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:47 am2008:
“They bring a knife, you bring a gun!”
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:48 amKevin, many would support the use of drones against freeway scofflaws, and internet hackers/spammers.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:49 amThis is true. Technically, he wasn’t in the chain of command but he made a decision in the heat of the moment. It was moot, because at the time he gave the authorization, flight 93 had already crashed. They didn’t hear his order through channels for another 10 minutes or so.
Communication was a fog both ways; when the PEOC heard that flight 93 was down in Shanksville, they assumed that it was shot down per the order, which wasn’t the case. They didn’t hear for a while that it was a crash. What a day.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:53 am“end justifying means” we implicitly have “the end justifying any means.”
and some end, no matter how noble, cannot be justified by ANY means.
dc (c868c1) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:54 amYou speak as if the last soldier was anywhere near leaving Iraq or Afghanistan any time soon.
And, unless I’m missing the general tone of the group, who cares, right? Our constitution doesn’t extend beyond our shores, so who cares if their people get slaughtered in the ensuing chaos? We can’t even contain our leaders with the rule of law, so how can we possibly spread the rule of law to places like Iraq and Afghanistan?
Ghost (2d8874) — 3/6/2013 @ 12:28 pm“Perhaps this is what Eric Holder has in mind”
I have no way of knowing, naturally, but I’d bet against.
‘Wait until you see the white at their roots.”
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/6/2013 @ 12:52 pmYou’re missing the general tone of the group.
Due process doesn’t extend to military operations. That has always been the law.
The left has successfully conducted lawfare to sufficiently muddy the waters so that many people, not just you Ghost, miss that distinction.
The Obama administration is particularly guilty in that regard.
They are applying a watered down law enforcement standard abroad because what happens abroad is beyond US jurisdiction. When they should be applying the standards of the Laws of Armed Conflict. But that doesn’t suit their knee-jerk anti-American bent.
Now they are bringing those watered down law enforcement standards back home. That’s the problem.
If Awlaki is an enemy combatant commander outside our ability to capture then it is just as proper to kill him as it was for us to target and kill ADM Yamamoto over the Solomons in April 1943 (Operation Vengeance). Their citizenship status was irrelevant; under the LOAC their comabatant status was the only important thing.
This is perfectly in accordance with Constitutional principles up until the Vietnam era when young leftist like Holder decided to get law degrees to tie our hands abroad during declared conflicts.
But no, the Constitution doesn’t stop at he waters edge. That is the cause of your confusion; you think if the President can kill a combatant abroad then he can arrest the Dixie chicks for expressing an opinion abroad.
You just don’t get it.
The real issue is this; there is a clear distinction between military operations and law enforcement. Due process only applies to law enforcement.
In a way I can understand your confusion on this point. Perhaps if the Obama administration didn’t declare US sovereign territory such as our diplomatic mission in Benghazi a crime scene after it was attacked by a foreign militia and then start an interminable FBI investigation it might be clearer (purely for political purposes by the way). Because the FBI agents who couldn’t even leave Tripoli without the military providing security won’t be serving arrest warrants in Libya. Obama will be sending in special forces or using drones to kill whoever is identified (if it isn’t merely his object to play this out until people drop it and then he can forget about it too).
The problem is that Obama and Holder had to apply just enough of a veneer of due process to military operations abroad to satisfy their partisan political base, and now they think this bastardized mix of law enforcement/military operations is the new standard of due process to apply at home.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 12:53 pmGhost, you might chew on this:
“Troops in Iraq – No U.S. troops remain in Iraq. The last 13,000 U.S/ troops were withdrawn in December 2011.”
http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm
If you have contradicting evidence, please cite it.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 1:04 pmBTW, that withdrawal was as per the Status of Forces Agreement (SFA) negotiated by the Bush Administration with the Iraqi Government, and the failure of the Obama Administration to complete a revision to extend our forces’ presence, a presence actually desired by the IG.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 1:06 pmGhost wrote:
He may have believed that the attack which killed the younger Mr al-Alaki was justified, by whatever information he had; that part I do not know. Our intelligence is rarely perfect, but I will not take the bait and state that, because we can never be certain that our information is completely correct, we can never act.
The Dana who doesn't know (3e4784) — 3/6/2013 @ 1:19 pmaskeptic. In December 2011 my brother was in charge of State Dept Security in Iraq. He was left with no U.S troops to aid in his job. He flew about the country on old helicopters with armed “CONTRACTORS”. He left Iraq in late July 2012, disgusted. Only to be sent to N.Africa last month.
gus (694db4) — 3/6/2013 @ 1:23 pmSMART DIPLOMACY!!
“You go to war with the army (intell) that you have!”
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 1:23 pmWanting perfection is part-and-parcel with “paralysis by analysis”, which the administrative-state is particularly prone to.
Only to be sent to N.Africa last month.
Out of the frying-pan, and into the fire.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 1:25 pmI know some “contractors” who are due to go to Benghazi this month, in fact.
When Obama kills these people like Anwar Awlaki’s kid, do they get proper Muslim burials at sea???
Pitzer College Sophomore (694db4) — 3/6/2013 @ 1:26 pmaskeptic, my bro was told he was going to Tripoli. He lucked out. They have sent the experienced State Dept Security crews to the hots spots. What the HELL happened. Doesn’t Kerry have RESET button?? Maybe if Kerry and Rodham took the MO-BRO-HOOD wind surfing, and had cocktails with them, things would get better!!! SMART DIPLOMACY!!!
GUS (694db4) — 3/6/2013 @ 1:28 pmIf my explanation was confused about the whole lawfare thing it’s because I was trying to describe concepts completely alien to me.
Ex Parte Quirin explains what used to be the standard before people like Holder demanded we grant full constitutional rights including the right to a US civilian court where we could be treated to the spectacle of an enemy combatant, whose only connection to the US is that he committed hostile acts against it, could put US forces and the US government on trial.
This is by no means the only important portion of the decision but sufficient for my purpose:
Under the Laws of Armed Conflict the only concern is whether or not an enemy combatant is a legitimate military target. Not if that enemy combatant is a US citizen. Not if you’d have enough evidence to convict that person of a crime. Just whether or not that individual is sufficiently significant to the enemy’s war effort that it would cripple or injure their capabilities if he were killed.
Which is what made ADM Yamamoto a legitimate target whereas, say, the head of the Japanese Forestry Service wouldn’t have been.
Unfortunately the people in the Obama administration who desperately wanted to give Khalid Sheik Muhammad a civilian trial in Manhattan but found their naive notions unworkable when they were no longer critics but the administration can’t admit they were wrong all along.
So now we’ve got the worst of all possible worlds. They’ve given us this bastardized system providing an overlay of the appearance of due process over military operations. Screwing up both military operations and law enforcement operations. Now the troops in A-stan can’t shoot an insurgent if he drops his weapon and walks away. Even though they that’s perfectly legal under the LOAC as he remains an enemy combatant who can rejoin his own forces, and they know perfectly well that’s exactly what he’s going to do once he improves his firing position and picks up another weapon.
And now they’re screwing up law enforcement by bringing the military operations home with that thin overlay of due process to apply to civilians, apparently.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 1:36 pmNot possible Steve57, Jamie Gorelick (multi-millionaire)and her boss, Janet Reno, would not allow any cross pollination between military, F.B.I. and C.I.A. That would be wrong. I’m certain that you are over reacting. Not to fear Holder and Obama are in charge.
GUS (694db4) — 3/6/2013 @ 1:41 pmSome more info on troops in Iraq (link above at my previous comment):
U.S. Troop Casualties – 4,487 US troops; 98% male. 91% non-officers; 82% active duty, 11% National Guard; 74% Caucasian, 9% African-American, 11% Latino. 19% killed by non-hostile causes. 54% of US casualties were under 25 years old. 72% were from the US Army
Unlike the caterwauling that we heard about how minorities were fighting a war in Vietnam for the benefit of white college boys, it seems that Caucasians are grossly over-represented in these casualty stats, and the minority communities are (typically) silent.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 2:03 pmRand Paul’s continued filibustering can be seen here.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/6/2013 @ 2:11 pmRACIST!!!
GUS (694db4) — 3/6/2013 @ 2:11 pmAnwar’s 16 year old son was not an enemy combatant. He was killed in a targeted strike. If the president can execute an American child whose only crime was having a d-bag father, then why couldn’t he arrest people for speaking?
Askeptic,
Contrators in Iraq have taken the troops place, but we aren’t disengaging.
Dana,
It doesn’t bother you that Obama is assuming the authority to kill the American children of his alleged (because he wasn’t found guilty in a court of law) without letting the public know his justifications for such actions?
Seriously, we agree that Anwar needed to die. I also believe that Christopher Dorner needed to die, but I’m not okay with the cops just burning houses down to get their man. The ends don’t justify the means.
Otherwise, our protections afforded to us in the bill of rights don’t mean jack. If the ends justify the means, then it doesn’t matter if cops barge into our houses without a warrant, or if the government decides everyone of your race needs to be incarcerated, as long as they get their guy in the end.
Ghost (2d8874) — 3/6/2013 @ 2:25 pm*Alleged enemy
Ghost (2d8874) — 3/6/2013 @ 2:26 pmCarlitos!!! Thanks for that link. He is on a tear.
JD (4f721c) — 3/6/2013 @ 2:30 pmThe contractors in Iraq are there for Diplomatic/NGO security.
Nowhere that I am aware of, is the DoD charged with Diplomatic Security. State has their own folks, and on-the-ground, facility-perimeter security is normally the job of indigenous forces (which worked out so well in Benghazi).
The post that you linked to says “…As many as 5,000 private security contractors will be protecting U.S. diplomats in Iraq…” which confirms what I have written, and does not support your implied accusation that we still have “combat” forces in Iraq – which we don’t as they all left 15-months ago.
You do not get a cigar, you do not get $200 for passing go!
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 2:33 pmThe Ghost wrote:
And here is the crux of the mater: you are asserting that because the younger Mr al-Awlaki “wasn’t found guilty in a court of law” but was hiding out in Yemen and consorting with a known enemy, someone even you agreed should have been killed, even though you didn’t like the way it was done, and thus couldn’t be tried, the President shouldn’t have had the authority to order the strike which killed him.
Your argument boils down to a position that we must follow the laws of criminal procedure and law enforcement with regard to a person who is beyond the jurisdiction of our courts and law enforcement organizations.
We hold that every person physically in the United States is subject to the laws and legal jurisdictions of the United States, the several states, and the local government in which those persons happen to be. If a Mexican citizen commits a murder in Texas, he is not extradited to Mexico, but tried in the Texas jurisdiction in which the crime occurred, and punished according to our laws.
Well, Anwar al-Awlaki was under the jurisdiction of Yemen, and the Yemenis were unwiling or unable to do anything about it. It became, for us, not a legal but a military matter.
The Dana who's now home from work, writing whilst dinner is still cooking (af9ec3) — 3/6/2013 @ 2:42 pmYou said we were unilaterally disengaging. Now you’re saying its all about “combat forces?” We aren’t disengaging. That’s a fact. I’ll take that cigar now.
Dana,
Where is the evidence that junior had committed any crime? Even according to Robert Gibbs, junior only got got because he had an irresponsible father.
If I renounce my citizenship and join the Taliban, does the president have the right to execute my children?
I only ask because nothing has been offered in the way of evidence to suggest that the younger was involved in terrorism.
Ghost (2d8874) — 3/6/2013 @ 3:06 pmWell as I’ve mentioned before, Awlaki jr. was not the primary target, an Egyptian born AQAP operative, Ibrahim Al Banna was the target, but as I say, after all the crocodile tears over ‘little Omar Kadr’ and Mohammed Ismail, the teen Taliban, it wrings a little hollow.
narciso (3fec35) — 3/6/2013 @ 3:07 pmGhost, you’re still not getting it. I’m not arguing Awlaki’s kid met the criteria, but when conducting military operations the Laws of Armed Conflict apply. Then the only consideration is if the individual is a legitimate military target. An enemy combatant commander can be targeted not to execute him for a crime but merely to harm the enemies ability to fight. That is perfectly lawful under international law.
We don’t target enemy integrated air defense systems or petroleum, oil, and lubricant facilities to punish them for crimes but to cripple the enemies warfighting capability. It’s legitimate to target an enemy commander for the same reason. Not to punish him for some crime but to cripple the enemy’s warfighting capability.
The way the military treats enemy belligerents is spelled out in treaties such as the Hague Convention and the Geneva Conventions. Enemy belligerents do not have rights under the US Constitution and they aren’t subject to US civilian laws. If they are accused of a war crime we try them by tribunal under military law.
The reason should be obvious; to remain lawful the opposing forces operate under agreed rules. We don’t treat the enemy as if they have US constitutional rights and they don’t treat us as if we have the same rights as their citizens under their laws.
We abide by treaties we’ve agreed to assuming we’re talking about the uniformed armed forces of two nations that have agreed to conduct the conflict per international law.
(And no, unlike the lawfare waging leftists would have it outlaw gangs like Hamas or al Qaeda don’t get to do whatever the hell they want be we or Israel have to abide by the rules no matter what atrocities they commit.)
I’m sure due process isn’t the right term, but when arresting people law enforcement has to have either knowledge that a crime has been committed, reasonable suspicion, or a warrant. When conducting a law enforcement operation
There are two different standards that apply. If Awlaki’s kid was deliberately targeted (I understand that he may not have been but merely simply with someone who might have qualified) it would have to have been in accordance with the LOAC.
The problem is the left has hopelessly (and deliberately) confused the two to the point where people don’t know the difference. So you now think the Preezy has to conduct an operation against Awlaki as if he were the chief law enforcement officer of the US but he can take action against a dissenting US citizen as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
What worries me is that it appears that the people at the top don’t know the difference either. Or just that they think they can act lawlessly; statements from Gibbs that we killed Awlaki’s kid because he had a lousy dad feed into that impression. Fortunately Gibbs is just a mouthpiece and nobody, not even Obama, would let that idiot have any input into the decision.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 3:18 pmComment by Ghost (2d8874) — 3/6/2013 @ 3:06 pm
So, to truly “disengage” would require the removal of all diplomatic personnel, including the Ambassador, and their security details?
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 3:23 pmIf I were to present you with a cigar, it would suitably be an exploding one, as befits your clown status.
You know what they call someone who constantly moves goal-posts?
Tired!
Steve, Ghost and his like do not care for the facts of the matter, they have their preconceived notions of what is right in the world, and no amount of contradicting data will move them from that precipice.
He can complain about the al-Awlaki’s, Pere & Fils, all he wants, it just confirms the alternate universe that he resides in.
The world is better off with the removal of the al-Awlaki’s and all of their brethren who succumbed to the “Fly-paper Strategy” in Iraq, and other locations.
To redo a phrase:
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 3:28 pmThe only good Islamo-Fascist is a dead Islamo-Fascist!
getting killdroned is one of the ways for sure you can miss out on dow record rally
you do not want to be this person
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/6/2013 @ 3:30 pmIt may be out of date, and the link is internet after all, but here is the operational law handbook for JAG with an overview of our standing rules of engagement at Chapter 5, pp. 77&78 http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/operational-law-handbook_2012.pdf
nk (53646e) — 3/6/2013 @ 3:50 pmAs I understand it, the respective military authority in a particular theater of operations can issue more specific ROEs for its own particular situations.
nk (53646e) — 3/6/2013 @ 3:53 pm@80. Most definitely, nk.
This is definitely dated, but this outlines the training personnel receive concerning the LOAC depending upon their duties.
OPNAVINST 3300.52
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 4:11 pmAll the drones that I see on TV seem to be white.
GUS (694db4) — 3/6/2013 @ 4:19 pmThat’s a problem.
Just to elaborate on your point, in addition to the theater commander the different services will have different standing ROE. Obviously Marine Forces Pacific, Air Forces Pacific, and the Pacific Fleet are each going to require different ROE because they operate in wildly different environments.
Such as recently whan PACAF F-15s intercepted a couple of Russian Bears near Guam.
The Navy has similar ROE for air intercepts, but the Air Force doesn’t need ROE for dealing with Chines naval combatants shadowing or attempting to interfere with one their ships.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 4:22 pmWhat could go wrong,
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/06/bloomberg-deputy-to-rand-paul-hey-the-people-trust-obama-to-do-the-right-thing-on-drones/
narciso (3fec35) — 3/6/2013 @ 4:28 pm66, 70. There are other people who would interest me as POTUS, possibly even more than R. Paul.
In my limited experience Mom’s X dominates Dad’s Y for many characteristics.
While I have to hand it to Christie, he’s a far sight better than Jeb, the difference just does not matter enough to induce me to cross the street.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/6/2013 @ 4:32 pmFollowing up on Steve57 and carlito’s comments regarding Rand Paul’s filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination, a number of Senators have joined him including Ron Wyden, Mike Lee, Jerry Moran, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 4:38 pmAskeptic,
So now you aren’t talking about “unilateral disengagement,” and I’m the one moving the goal posts?
Steve,
I understand the difference. Our government doesn’t. I was under the impression that the youth was targeted for execution, but if he was just a bystander, then I retract my statement that he wasn’t collateral damage. My point about the Dixie chicks was about if the president can execute the children of his alleged enemies, then what’s to stop him from using the sedition act to arrest people for speaking? But if he wasn’t the target, I guess my point is null.
And you are absolutely right that the problem is them bringing the program here. My concern is the precedent it sets and the slippery slope of “unintended consequences.”
I do understand the difference though. I don’t think enemy combatants are entitled to due process, but that to deprive an American citizen of life, liberty or property, just cause needs to be proved. And according to this administration, it doesn’t have to prove jackshlt. That’s a problem for me.
Ghost (2d8874) — 3/6/2013 @ 5:07 pmWith 6 filibustering tea partiers, surely those courageous republicans will find a cave to hide out in.
mg (31009b) — 3/6/2013 @ 5:10 pmFrom “unilateral disengagement” to “there’s no troops” to “what, you meant unilateral disengagement?”
You must be pretty tired.
Ghost (2d8874) — 3/6/2013 @ 5:20 pmIt’s a fair point, one runs the risk of what the Romans called proscription, that ex military atty for one of the AQ cells in Oregon, under this set up, might have been blown up before it was determined he wasn’t involved in the Madrid bombings
narciso (3fec35) — 3/6/2013 @ 5:23 pmWill the Democratic Senators agree that the President shouldn’t use domestic drones to kill Americans who pose no imminent threat?
Not at this time.
The anti-war activists are not happy. Pass the popcorn.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 3/6/2013 @ 5:44 pmI have a new drone strike thread featuring Ted Cruz’s questioning of Holder, here.
Patterico (9c670f) — 3/6/2013 @ 5:48 pmI’ll quote again from Ex Parte Quirin:
In the course of a military operation it doesn’t matter whether or not the enemy belligerent is a US citizen or not. It only matters that they’re an enemy belligerent. You no more need to show good cause to kill one than the other. If the US citizen is a valid military target then that’s all that’s required.
But this isn’t the standard we should be applying within US territory. Or for that matter within cooperative countries where the suspect isn’t beyond the reach of law enforcement.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 5:58 pmThat certainly seems to be the precedent set by ‘Abdullah Muhajir,’ the Padilla case, the lefties were all verklempt then,
narciso (3fec35) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:13 pmOk, some points on Quirin. All it held was that 1) an Article II court (military tribunal), as opposed to an Article III court with the attendant right to a jury, was sufficient to try unlawful combatants, saboteurs not in uniform, and 2) distingushed them from soldiers in uniform who were to be held as prisoners of war. It did not address the treatment of either lawful or unlawful combatants in the battlefield.
Only Haupt was a U.S. citizen and it was the fact that he was a belligerent that subjected him to the jurisdiction of the tribunal, his citizenship notwithstanding. His parents, who only sheltered him and his buddies, were tried for treason by an Article III court and jury. They had not waged war, they had “only” given aid and comfort.
FWIW
nk (53646e) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:26 pmSteve57,
Are American citizens “who associate themselves with the military arm of an enemy government” the same as citizens who join Al Qaeda? I think it could be distinguished from a legal perspective.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:30 pmI still cannot believe are having a filibuster to prevent a president from launching airstrikes against his fellow citizens on US soil
EPWJ (1ea63e) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:53 pmHow? A US citizen fighting in a foreign force, wearing their uniform and fighting lawfully, is a belligerent and only gets the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
Should a US citizen as an enemy belligerent violating the LOAC get better?
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:26 pmAlso, DRJ, a US citizen fighting out of uniform in a foreign militia that conducts itself lawfully by meeting these conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a
person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed
distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their
operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.
Also gets the protection of the Geneva Conventions.
What distinction would you make for a member of al Qaeda, a militia that violates all the laws and customs of war?
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:30 pmnk, I was simply using Ex Parte Quirin to show the SCOTUS recognized that under certain conditions a US citizen meets the definition of an enemy belligerent.
Which makes that US citizen just as valid a target as any other belligerent.
I had no higher purpose.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:33 pmAl Qaeda isn’t a traditional military and, as a result, doesn’t qualify for Geneva Convention protection. That’s one reason why the Supreme Court has struggled with so many War on Terror cases, and it’s a reason why Quirin may be distinguishable.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:33 pmJust as valid a target on the battlefield, that is.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:34 pmDRJ, that distinction I understand. But they’re still belligerents.
To be totally frank, when the powers that drafted and signed the Hague and Geneva Conventions they never intended them to apply in places like Afghanistan.
Al Qaeda isn’t a traditional militia but it’s not a new type of militia.
The Young British Soldier, Rudyard Kipling
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:43 pmThey called them ghazi’s then, and the weapon of choice was the jezail,
narciso (3fec35) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:45 pmIt’s one thing to talk about belligerents affiliated with Al Qaeda in foreign countries, but this is about citizens on U.S. soil. I think the standards will be different. I suspect a court would require a clear showing that the belligerent intended to aid the enemy and poses an imminent threat … and even that might not be enough. A court might very well decide the threat must be imminent and significant.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:48 pmThis one, addressed the imbalance, back then;
http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/arithmetic_on_frontier.html
narciso (3fec35) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:51 pmDRJ, I agree with you. There’s one standard that needs to be applied to the conduct of war, another to law enforcement.
During times of insurrection or invasion the President can authorize the use of military force within US territory. Then the Law of Armed Conflict applies.
At all other times, though, we abide by the Constitution and US law. Whether or not the suspect is a US citizen or not.
Which is why, when I take a step back to take a look at the forest, I’ve got to wonder isn’t the real question why are we talking about using air-to-ground missiles at all?
If there had been a need for that we could have just armed police helicopters with missiles and perhaps cannons and been done with it. Wouldn’t the ethical issues be the same when we’re dealing “death from above” from a manned aircraft as well as from an unmanned drone?
It’s not like blowing somebody to kingdom come with an airstrike is a new capability. Sure, now we have some really big, sophisticated radio controlled model aircraft that can do the job.
But to me the larger issue isn’t drones. Why do we need to do airstrikes within US territory on US citizens? No matter the airframe or whether the aircraft is piloted remotely or not.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:35 pmAnnouncing the 2013 E-Postal Match.
SPQR (768505) — 3/7/2013 @ 8:23 am