Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)5 Practical Ideas To Rein In The Presidential Power To Kill Americans [View all]
First, the ACLU statement on release of the legal basis.
Obama to Give DOJ Targeted Killing Memo to Congressional Intel Committees
WASHINGTON President Obama has reportedly ordered the Justice Department to give the House and Senate intelligence committees the secret legal opinion justifying the extrajudicial killing of American citizens suspected of being a threat to the United States.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-give-doj-targeted-killing-memo-congressional-intel-committees
WASHINGTON President Obama has reportedly ordered the Justice Department to give the House and Senate intelligence committees the secret legal opinion justifying the extrajudicial killing of American citizens suspected of being a threat to the United States.
While this is a small step in the right direction, democratic transparency requires President Obama to make the full memo available to the public. The United States is not a nation of secret laws, and a memo authorizing the killing of American citizens is too important to keep from the American people, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Christopher Anders said. Everyone not just select members of Congress has a right to know when the government believes it can kill American citizens. This concession has taken far too long and falls far short of President Obama's commitment to transparency he pledged to abide by since becoming president.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-give-doj-targeted-killing-memo-congressional-intel-committees
5 Practical Ideas To Rein In The Presidential Power To Kill Americans
By Ian Millhiser and Zack Beauchamp
<...>
The Constitution provides that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, but it gives no further guidance on exactly how much or what kind of process is due to a U.S. citizen who becomes a senior leader of our enemies. Normally, Americans look to the judiciary to provide procedural rights, but federal judges are ill-suited for the kind of swift decision within a narrow window of opportunity that is required in this context. The only circumstances in which the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen could ever hypothetically be justified are ones where the citizen is directly engaging in hostilities against the United States and theres a reason judges dont review generals targeting decisions before theyre made. Judges specialize in thoughtful, languid decision-making of the kind that often takes months to consider all arguments on both sides of a dispute....But if judicial pre-approval of military orders isnt a realistic means of regulating targeted killings, DOJs framework calls for the other extreme leaving the decision to kill a senior enemy combatant in the hands of high-level executive branch officials who are ultimately responsible to the President. This framework ensures both that decisions can be made swiftly and by officials with a broad understanding of both the details of a particular operation and of the laws governing war. But it also means that there is little external check on an executive branch eager to use its power irresponsibly. And even if you trust President Obama to not abuse a power to order targeted killings, there is no guarantee that the next president can also be trusted.
Between the two extremes, DOJ is probably right as a matter of law that the administration can act without independent oversight. Regardless of the wisdom of the broadly worded Authorization for Use of Military Force against Al-Qaeda and related terrorist forces, the AUMF is a duly-enacted Act of Congress, and the Presidents wartime power is at its apex when he acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress.
But the current state of affairs is dangerous at best, and it does not have to be the only way. Since at least as far back as the Supreme Courts 1804 decision in Little v. Barreme, Congress has had the power to prevent the president from waging war in certain ways. Without endorsing any particular proposal, here are five ways Congress could step into the breach:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/06/1541261/dojs-targeted-killing-document-is-probably-right-about-the-law-and-thats-a-serious-problem/
By Ian Millhiser and Zack Beauchamp
<...>
The Constitution provides that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, but it gives no further guidance on exactly how much or what kind of process is due to a U.S. citizen who becomes a senior leader of our enemies. Normally, Americans look to the judiciary to provide procedural rights, but federal judges are ill-suited for the kind of swift decision within a narrow window of opportunity that is required in this context. The only circumstances in which the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen could ever hypothetically be justified are ones where the citizen is directly engaging in hostilities against the United States and theres a reason judges dont review generals targeting decisions before theyre made. Judges specialize in thoughtful, languid decision-making of the kind that often takes months to consider all arguments on both sides of a dispute....But if judicial pre-approval of military orders isnt a realistic means of regulating targeted killings, DOJs framework calls for the other extreme leaving the decision to kill a senior enemy combatant in the hands of high-level executive branch officials who are ultimately responsible to the President. This framework ensures both that decisions can be made swiftly and by officials with a broad understanding of both the details of a particular operation and of the laws governing war. But it also means that there is little external check on an executive branch eager to use its power irresponsibly. And even if you trust President Obama to not abuse a power to order targeted killings, there is no guarantee that the next president can also be trusted.
Between the two extremes, DOJ is probably right as a matter of law that the administration can act without independent oversight. Regardless of the wisdom of the broadly worded Authorization for Use of Military Force against Al-Qaeda and related terrorist forces, the AUMF is a duly-enacted Act of Congress, and the Presidents wartime power is at its apex when he acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress.
But the current state of affairs is dangerous at best, and it does not have to be the only way. Since at least as far back as the Supreme Courts 1804 decision in Little v. Barreme, Congress has had the power to prevent the president from waging war in certain ways. Without endorsing any particular proposal, here are five ways Congress could step into the breach:
- Public Disclosure The first and simplest corrective is greater public oversight. An impartial, independently supported reviewer or review panel could be given full access to classified information, and then convey its opinion on the facts and justification of any strike, and the general Administration procedure, to the American public. The United Kingdom pioneered this model as a means of providing oversight for expanded police powers during the conflict with the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland, with some success. However, this procedure could at best only provide the public with more information about any individual strike after it happened rather than formally restrain any abuse of power by the President and its record on the latter score in Northern Ireland is hardly spotless.
- Mandatory Consultation: Congress could also require a formalized, publicly understood executive or executive-legislative review process. This legislation would require consultation with and approval from some group (the National Security Council, the Cabinet, or a group of legislators) for any strike targeting American citizens, telling the public who, exactly, was making life-and-death decisions. There appears to already be something like this in place according to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the white paper released Monday night was a summary of the executive decision process for Congress consumption. However, until this procedure is public, theres no guarantee that it provides real oversight. And even then, itd be hard to know as scholar Daniel Byman notes, Israel has a well-known consultation procedure for targeted killing, but one thats bedeviled by controversy in part because theres little independent legal oversight outside of the government itself.
- Special Courts: Byman recommends a third option on top of formalized executive and Congressional review: a special independent court, with members appointed by the Supreme Court, that would approve or deny requests to conduct targeted killing. The model here is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts that approve the wiretapping of individuals suspect of being foreign agents. This has the virtue of providing legal oversight, but abuse of the FISA system that began under the Bush Administration and continues under Obama proves theyre not necessarily strong checks. Theres also something deeply troubling about creating a judicial system designed explicitly to authorize the use of military force against American citizens.
- Lawsuits After-The-Fact: Congress could reform the byzantine laws surrounding state secrets to allow currently-existing courts to review the legality of any targeted killing after the fact. Currently, a legal thicket that one judge called a catch-22? allows the administration to legally hide its justification for striking American citizens, and has threatened to shoot down lawsuits that challenge this power using the State Secrets doctrine if they might expose classified information. Were Congress to reform the relevant laws, paving the way for lawsuits challenging the legality of a targeted killing after the fact, that might allow courts to set reasonable limitations on the practice by establishing clear precedents about the conditions under which a strike was justified. Of course, the courts could only review a strike after the fact, which means that in the event of a wrongful killing, the American citizen in question would still be dead.
- An Outright Ban: Finally, Congress could simply ban the premeditated, targeted killing of American citizens. This law would allow for killing if either 1) troops attempting to apprehend the citizen are engaged by hostile forces or 2) if said citizen was part of a conventional military force actively engaged in combat with American forces rather than a terrorist organization. But if the government is right that sometimes, the only way to eliminate serious terrorist threats posed by citizens is a targeted killing, this could come at a serious cost in American lives.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/06/1541261/dojs-targeted-killing-document-is-probably-right-about-the-law-and-thats-a-serious-problem/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
17 replies, 1719 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
17 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
5 Practical Ideas To Rein In The Presidential Power To Kill Americans [View all]
ProSense
Feb 2013
OP
I'll add a 6th - Sustained, intense public criticism of this unconstitutional policy. Keep it up!
leveymg
Feb 2013
#1
Your (or, more properly, Milheiser's and Beauchamp's) 5 options seriously beg
coalition_unwilling
Feb 2013
#5
Ah, but there's the rub. Who decides who has taken up arms against the U.S.? That's what
coalition_unwilling
Feb 2013
#8
How about mandatory expatriation for anyone who takes up arms against the United States?
Spider Jerusalem
Feb 2013
#2
That was debated and rejected by the Framers. Your idea would have been RW in the 18th Century.
leveymg
Feb 2013
#6
Hold a trial in absentia for the accused. A public, open, trial, complete with a defense team.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2013
#16