How Obama Decides to Kill American Citizens in the War on Terror

[Draggingtree]

The Atlantic Wire:

How Obama Decides to Kill American Citizens in the War on Terror

Adam Clark Estes Feb 4, 2013

 

Human-rights advocates were floored on Monday night when NBC News published the details of an alarming Justice Department memo detailing the protocol for sending drones after United States citizens. It's not as if they hadn't suspected that the Obama administration's top-secret drone attack protocol contained some unsavory details. They just didn't expect them to be so frightfully broad. The scoop by Michael Isikoff is actually startling not for the details but rather for the lack of details. It's very vague about a decision-making process that puts American lives on the line. Put simply, the government believes that a lethal drone attack against an American citizen is justified if the targets are a) "senior operational leaders" of al Qaeda or "an associated force." Snip

How, for instance, does this justify the killing of al-Awlaki's 16-year-old, American-born son? Surely he was "associated" with his father, but not an "associated force."

[Pepper]

@Valin

 

I am surprised you are not jumping in on this. Or perhaps it was posted earlier by you. This is outrageous.

[Draggingtree]

Someday everyone will be on a kill list for 15 minutes

 

Posted by William A. Jacobson Tuesday, February 5, 2013 at 4:01pm

Which means that minute 16 is the sweetest minute of all.

With regard to the DOJ Kill List Memo, Pepperdine Law Prof. Greg McNeal focuses onSix Key Points Regarding the DOJ Targeted Killing White Paper, of which one is of particular interest, the issue of “war crimes”:

 

(6) The white paper discusses at page 16, potential war crimes liability for improper targeting decisions/criteria. It is notable that while the white paper cites the ICRC DPH study, the reasoning of the white paper and the sentence that follows the cite to the DPH study do not seem to comport with the ICRC’s views on direct participation in hostilities or continuous combat function, rather the U.S. view seems to be a membership only based approach. The white paper states “An operation against a senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or its associated forces who poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would target a person who is taking an ‘active part in hostilities’ and therefore would not constitute a ‘grave breach’ of Common Article 3.” I don’t think the ICRC would subscribe to the U.S. view of “active part in hostilities” as articulated in this white paper, unless the argument is that a “senior operational leader” has a continuous combat function, but that would require sufficient levels of organization for al-Qaeda as an armed group, something that is not mentioned let alone explained in the white paper.

 

I wrote about the possibility of war crimes charges back in December 2009, Drone Strikes Put Obama Admin Officials At Risk, and again in May 2010, Can War Crimes Charges Be Far Off? http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/02/someday-everyone-will-be-on-a-kill-list-for-15-minutes/

Quote from the article "I do agree with him, however, on the issue of transparency:"

[Valin]

@Valin

 

I am surprised you are not jumping in on this. Or perhaps it was posted earlier by you. This is outrageous.

 

Anwar al-Awlaki....American Citizen...Killed in a Drone Strike....Putting that in the Good Thing Column.

[Pepper]

@Valin

 

I am surprised you are not jumping in on this. Or perhaps it was posted earlier by you. This is outrageous.

 

Anwar al-Awlaki....American Citizen...Killed in a Drone Strike....Putting that in the Good Thing Column.

 

And yeah, how about

 

Dateline Upper Minnesota (AP/Fox) Shep Smith reporting here on the tragic case of Valin, III, a wise man and frequent The Right Reasons contributor as well as Board Member. Mr Valin's house was destroyed by an accidental Hellfire missile launch from a predator drone when either drone operator encountered the Blue Screen of Death or perhaps inserted the wrong coordinates for a strike approved by The ObamaMessiah..... we are still awaiting confirmation....

[Valin]

 

 

 

Video: John Bolton: Obama Can Order Drone Strikes Against U.S. Citizens

 

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton says President Obama's drone program "appears to be consistent with the policies of the Bush administration."

 

"If you assess the threat of international terrorism to be the equivalent of war, then you're in the 'law of war' paradigm. This is not like robbing the local 7-Eleven, where you resort to the law enforcement paradigm," said Bolton, who added that Article II of the Constitution gives

 

 

Not sure if people are aware or not but there is still a war on.

[Draggingtree]

@Valin

 

I am surprised you are not jumping in on this. Or perhaps it was posted earlier by you. This is outrageous.

 

Anwar al-Awlaki....American Citizen...Killed in a Drone Strike....Putting that in the Good Thing Column.

Sorry that should be put in a bad column == remember where we live at what we support that's why it makes us different from the rest of the world.

[Draggingtree]

[Valin]

@Valin

 

I am surprised you are not jumping in on this. Or perhaps it was posted earlier by you. This is outrageous.

 

Anwar al-Awlaki....American Citizen...Killed in a Drone Strike....Putting that in the Good Thing Column.

shouk\ld be put in bad column == remember where we live at what we support

 

al-Awlaki being dead dead dead is not a good thing, it is a Very Good Thing.

Lets not get out panties in a bunch and come down with a darn near terminal case of O.D.S. (Obama Derangement Syndrome).

 

Also might be a good idea to read what it says, before we declare the end of the world as we know it.

[Draggingtree]

@Valin

 

I am surprised you are not jumping in on this. Or perhaps it was posted earlier by you. This is outrageous.

 

Anwar al-Awlaki....American Citizen...Killed in a Drone Strike....Putting that in the Good Thing Column.

shouk\ld be put in bad column == remember where we live at what we support

 

al-Awlaki being dead dead dead is not a good thing, it is a Very Good Thing.

Lets not get out panties in a bunch and come down with a darn near terminal case of O.D.S. (Obama Derangement Syndrome).

 

Also might be a good idea to read what it says, before we declare the end of the world as we know it.

we are talking about OR should be talking about The Rule of Law. (sorry)

[Valin]

@Valin

 

I am surprised you are not jumping in on this. Or perhaps it was posted earlier by you. This is outrageous.

 

Anwar al-Awlaki....American Citizen...Killed in a Drone Strike....Putting that in the Good Thing Column.

shouk\ld be put in bad column == remember where we live at what we support

 

al-Awlaki being dead dead dead is not a good thing, it is a Very Good Thing.

Lets not get out panties in a bunch and come down with a darn near terminal case of O.D.S. (Obama Derangement Syndrome).

 

Also might be a good idea to read what it says, before we declare the end of the world as we know it.

we are talking about OR should be talking about The Rule of Law. (sorry)

 

From TPM Comments...

 

 

 

I don't pretend to know the answers to this riddle, but the source of the confusion is plain enough.

 

Over the course of many decades, we've developed a set of rules that define what's permissible in the context of a war. We've developed a very different set of rules that define what's permissible in the context of law enforcement.

 

When faced with an organized opponent like al-Qaida, we're stumped. It doesn't fit our definition of a war - there is no opposing state, no official declaration of the conflict, and almost no way to define what a victory would look like. The enemy doesn't have a centralized command and control structure in its capital city. Its forces don't mass on the border, try to soften us up with an artillery barrage, then swarm in.

 

Yet the tools of law enforcement are clearly not up to the challenge of meeting the threat. How do we gather evidence against a shadowy opponent in a foreign country? How do we carry out an arrest? How do we bring the bad guys to trial?

 

In a way, it's not unlike what we have always faced when dealing with organized crime here at home. Everyone knew that Al Capone was a murdering thug, but getting him into jail was damned difficult, and a lot of other crime bosses have died peacefully in their beds, untouched by the legal system. It would be a lot easier if we could declare war on the Mafia and call in an air strike, but that's not an option for law enforcement.

 

It's no wonder that our government ends up feeling around in the dark, trying to develop a legally acceptable approach to defending us against this kind of opponent. The legal framework simply doesn't exist. In that process, there's bound to be a fair amount of uncomfortable line-crossing.

 

It does need to be worked out in public, however.

 

 

The way I see it.

We are at war

In war you do not arrest the enemy

You Kill them.

 

There are American Citizens right now overseas who are at war with us.

[Rheo]

Brad Thor's, Black List book, is about this subject and it was chilling.

 

His author note at the beginning from 2010 stated....

"All of the technology contained in this novel is based upon systems currently being deployed, or in the final stages of development, by the United States government and its partners."

 

That book is what we are reading about now.

[nickydog]

This is a good discussion.

[Draggingtree]

2/5/2013

 

 

More Reasons to Worry About a Slippery Slope From the Assassination Memo

 

Filed under: General— Patterico @ 8:56 pm

Think it’s crazy to worry about a slippery slope when a memo tells Barack Obama he’s good to kill American citizens who aren’t imminently about to attack the United States?

 

What if the U.S. citizen is a 16-year-old whose crime is having a terrorist dad?

Now, I can hear you saying: “hey, if the 16-year-old happens to be standing right next to his terrorist dad when we kill the dad . . .” If that’s what you’re thinking, stop. It’s not entirely clear what did happen . . . but it’s clear that’s not what happened:

But Abdulrahman al-Awlaki wasn’t on an American kill list.

Nor was he a member of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Penin[su]la. Nor was he “an inspiration,” as his father styled himself, for those determined to draw American blood; nor had he gone “operational,” as American authorities said his father had, in drawing up plots against Americans and American interests. He was a boy who hadn’t seen his father in two years, since his father had gone into hiding.

If a president would need a warrant to wiretap American citizens, presumably he should need a warrant to, um, kill them.

http://patterico.com/2013/02/05/more-reasons-to-worry-about-a-slippery-slope-from-the-assassination-memo/

[Valin]

BLACKFIVE: Review of John Yoo's "Crisis and Command"
Elise Cooper
March 11, 2010



John Yoo’s latest book, Crisis and Command, is an encyclopedia of information on how presidents from Washington to George W. Bush dealt with national security. He explores the decision by the founding fathers to make sure the president is in control over foreign affairs and war-time issues.

He made an interesting point on how President Washington set the precedent and established traditions for future Commanders-in-Chief. Washington made sure that in issues of war and foreign affairs, the President would act independently from Congress and be the leader. The framers thought the presidency would be a fairly modest office when it came to domestic affairs and Congress would take the lead. In contrast, the president would have a great deal of power with foreign affairs as long as there was a crisis. Yoo told blackfive.net that the hero of the book was President Lincoln. He commented that Lincoln “had a real fortitude of character and was willing to use the full powers of the Constitution to meet the challenge of secession. His policies were in the best interests of the country.”

The book explores Yoo’s belief that Presidents should be in charge of foreign affairs. He gave high marks to Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman for doing this. Congress tried to prevent FDR from entering WW II with the neutrality acts. Roosevelt saw the threat to the security of the country and used his constitutional executive powers to violate those acts. According to Yoo, President Truman’s containment policy put the power of foreign policy squarely with the President. His policy was the framework for future Presidents on how America would fight the Cold War.

(Snip)

[Valin]

Video: Krauthammer: If You Take Up Arms Against The United States You Have Forfeited Your Rights

 

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I really don't understand this sort of hysteria over the idea of killing Americans who have taken up arms against the United States. Thousands of Americans, Southerners, died in Antietam without any due process. When we stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-day, and Americans approached German bunkers, I don't think anybody asked if they were any German-Americans here, I want to read you the Miranda rights. If you take up arms against the United States you were a target because it was an act of war and you forfeited those rights.

 

Now, the question is, it's a different war, these people are in a guerilla war, a terrorist war, we don't have the same lines. They aren't representing a country and we need guidelines. I think the critique of this administration, is in the guidelines that you indicated, they were probably written by somebody in the lower quintile of his law school class.

 

They want to pretend that you can only hit an American al-Qaeda operative who is an imminent threat and then define him as a threat out of existence by saying al-Qaeda is continually hatching plots so he's always, all day and all night, an imminent threat; i.e., that criterion is meaningless. I think that we really have to have an effort in the Congress and in the executive and in the country, have an argument about what are the guidelines, who is the soldier and who loses all rights in this kind of shadow war? We've never had it before. We should have a debate and it's good that we have a president on the left and a Congress, half of which is on the right, to work out criteria because it can be done. And there has to be a national consensus on this. (Special Report, February 6, 2013)

[Valin]

Obama Is Hypocritical but Right on Drones

Jonathan S. Tobin

2/6/13

 

I agree completely with Pete about the rank hypocrisy of President Obama when it comes to using his powers to fight terrorism. Liberals and Democrats accused President Bush, Vice President Cheney and those associated with conducting the war on terror of being immoral lawbreakers–but now hold their tongues when it is Obama and his colleagues who have asserted the power to hold prisoners in indefinite captivity or order the deaths of terror suspects. Everyone on the left, up to and including the president, owes Bush, Cheney and company an abject apology on this score, though I’m afraid it will never be forthcoming.

 

But it is important to note that those on the right who are inclined to give Obama a taste of his own medicine on the issue of drone strikes against al-Qaeda figures should take a deep breath and think more about what is good for the country as opposed to what the president deserves. It may be, as Pete noted, that the used of “enhanced interrogation” was nothing when compared to the brutality and casualties incurred as a result of Obama’s drone strikes, but that is no excuse for any Congressional action aimed at restricting the executive branch’s ability to wage war against America’s foes. Even in the cases of American citizens who have been marked for death via drones without benefit of a judicial process, conservatives and civil libertarians alike should understand that these are reasonable measures taken to defend against those seeking to murder American citizens.

 

Let’s understand that the discussion about drone strikes is not a matter of the government seeking to stifle dissent. Those who have joined al-Qaeda and become part of its leadership are not trying to change America; they are waging war on it. Thus, even in the absence of what the Justice Department memo on such strikes referred to as an “imminent threat” of a specific terror attack, there is no question that any al-Qaeda leader is in the business of killing Americans in any way and at any time or place possible.

 

(Snip)

[Valin]

Flashback: The 16 Year Old American Killed In One Of Those “Legal, Wise And Ethical” Drone Strikes

 

 

Valin says...Life's A B**ch, and then you die.

 

 

A Small Simple Question for Those commenting at Weasel Zippers...Would you be saying these things 5-6 years ago when George Bush was calling the shots? Somehow I doubt it. ODS in action.

[Valin]

Dick Cheney's revenge

RICH LOWRY

2/6/13

 

Will the author of the Obama administration white paper on killing U.S. citizens please report for his war crimes trial right away?

 

(Snip)

 

The white paper has ignited not quite a firestorm (again, this isn’t the Bush administration), but at least a smoldering ember of brow-furrowed consternation among the president’s supporters and journalistic sympathizers who find the document “chilling.”

 

 

They rarely say what their alternative would be. Does a U.S. citizen get an exemption from targeting if he joins Al Qaeda at a high level? Should his status be litigated before he can be targeted, and if so, by whom and for how long and on the basis of what evidence? Can he show up in the court room to confront his accusers, a basic element of the Anglo-American system? Should al-Awlaki have gotten a court-appointed lawyer (assuming Gloria Allred wasn’t available) and access to all the intelligence about him so he could properly contest it? Maybe over Skype from somewhere in the badlands of Yemen?

 

(Snip)

[Pepper]

 

@Valin @Rheo @Draggingtree

 

 

http://facethepoliti...omber-obama.jpg

 

Dear Abby,

 

I get perverse pleasure at sending (pictures of) drones to liberal colleagues who are Obama voters (redundant, I know). It feels so good, it must be wrong. Please help me.

-- Pepper

[quantim]

 

 

Dear Abby,

 

I get perverse pleasure at sending (pictures of) drones to liberal colleagues who are Obama voters (redundant, I know). It feels so good, it must be wrong. Please help me.

-- Pepper

 

 

Hey Pepper, here's a couple more to pass around!

[Draggingtree]

Buchanan: Endless war?

By: Patrick J. Buchanan

2/8/2013 02:10 AM

 

“When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

 

So said Richard Nixon in his interviews with David Frost. Nixon was talking about wiretaps and surreptitious entries to protect lives and safeguard national security in a violent and anarchic war decade.

The Nixon haters pronounced themselves morally sickened.

Fast forward to our new century. For, since 9/11, we have heard rather more extravagant claims by American presidents.

Under George W. Bush, it was presidential authority to waterboard, torture, rendition and hold enemy aliens in indefinite detention at Guantanamo.

Under Barack Obama, we don’t have a Nixon “enemies list” of folks who are not to be invited to White House dinners. Rather, we have a “kill list” — a menu from which our constitutional law professor president selects individuals to be executed abroad.

As killing a U.S. citizen is a graver deed than waterboarding a terrorist plotter to get information to save lives, Obama, who bewailed Bush’s detention, rendition and interrogation policies, appears guilty of manifest hypocrisy.

But with 3,000 to 4,500 now killed by drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen over 10 years, and an estimated 200 children and other civilians among the “collateral damage,” it is past time for a debate on where we are going in this “war on terror.” http://www.humanevents.com/2013/02/08/buchanan-endless-war/

[Valin]

Buchanan: Endless war?

By: Patrick J. Buchanan

2/8/2013 02:10 AM

 

 

What is Obama’s plan, the Republicans’ plan for ending or winning this war, whose scope widens with each year?

 

 

"We Win They Lose."

R Reagan on his plan for the cold war.

 

I have something to confess....I actually sent his presidential campaign money. I'm not really proud of it, and I can only plead stupidity on my part.

[Valin]

NRO: All the President’s Drones

 

There are a number of problems with this administration’s conduct of the War on Terror in general, and with its drone campaign in particular. But the elimination of Anwar Al-Awlaki — an al-Qaeda militant with a demonstrated commitment to the destruction of the United States who happened to have been born in New Mexico — is not one of them.

 

The release of a Justice Department white paper outlining the administration’s legal case for the targeted killing of American citizens who are in cahoots with al-Qaeda has raised protest from the left, which has leeway to criticize the president now that he has been safely reelected, and unfortunately from some on the right, who find it convenient to locate their inner civil-liberty scolds when the White House is occupied by a Democrat. But there is in fact little novel in the white paper or the principles on which it relies. Due process is not generally required in battlefield situations, and an American citizen engaged in hostilities against the United States, on foreign soil and in concert with a terrorist force, is surely not entitled to counsel and a hearing before being dispatched. If he were, it would paralyze our ability to fight war.

 

(Snip)

 

The white paper relies heavily on the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to justify targeted killings of enemy combatants. This is fine as far as it goes. The AUMF was written broadly, but it passed twelve years ago. It could use a tune-up. And it would be appropriate for Congress to lend further political legitimacy to the drone program by explicitly giving its assent.

 

To be fair, it is true that the Obama administration fetishizes drones and over-relies on them in its prosecution of the War on Terror. This is due in no small measure to its own undermining of the Bush-era institutions and procedures built up to deal with captured enemy combatants.......(Snip)

[Draggingtree]

 

Col. Allen B. West worries about revelations of President Obama’s drone kill list, and reports that he has unilaterally executed American citizens overseas. Does Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” provide answers to America’s fight against terror? Find out as Col. West warns of the dangers of drone warfare and kill lists.

 

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&load=8007&mpid=517#