General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
This Lawyer Enabled the Extrajudicial Killing of an American
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/this-lawyer-enabled-the-extrajudicial-killing-of-an-american/361832/
?n579mv
When Barack Obama ordered the secret assassination of an American citizen without due process, he relied on legal cover provided by an Office of Legal Counsel lawyer. Now that lawyer, David Barron, has been nominated to a federal appeals court. The lifetime appointment would empower him to decide hugely important questions of Constitutional law. The Senate must decide whether to confirm him.
"Certainly the opinion would not be something I would have written," says Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat on the intelligence committee. "The question is: Is it disqualifying?”
It ought to be.
Let's be clear about the question each Senator confronts: Should the Constitution be entrusted to a man who thinks Americans can be killed without due process? Voters should oust any Senator who thinks so. Those Senators' disregard for the 5th Amendment should be broadcast in attack ads every campaign season.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Anwar al-Awlaki was an enemy of the state.
We shot German-Americans who returned to Germany to fight for Hitler. Same thing, different decade, war, and war zone.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...it's about legal processes and procedures.
Either it means something to be an American citizen, or it doesn't. If it doesn't mean anything in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, then your and my legal protections -- in particular, those that derive from US citizenship -- have also been eroded.
Sure the guy was a criminal scumbag terrorist-wannabe-cheerleader. He was also a US citizen. We are a nation of laws. If we find ways to evade Constitutional protections for one criminal, then we are eroding the rights of all US citizens.
We could have captured the man. I understand that we didn't want to risk our own soldiers. I understand that it can be inconvenient to follow one's own laws. Laws can be so... hampering. But either we are committed to our status as a nation of laws, or we are not.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...there are rules of war, both within military commands and between militaries, whether friend or foe. In the second place, define "battlefield". Are you claiming that anywhere there is a declared enemy of the state, is a battlefield? What if that person was located in Times Square on a busy day? Would you be okay with droning the person in that case, regardless of collateral damage -- because it's a "battlefield", after all... ?
If the President can declare a US citizen as an enemy of the state and have that person summarily executed -- even if it can only happen on foreign soil, which still holds true at present -- then all of our rights have suffered.
dilby
(2,273 posts)Did he deserve to be executed with no due process? Sorry but either citizenship means something or it doesn't and if the government can execute anyone with no due process then there is a problem. These guys were not members of any foreign army nor were we at war with Yemen. This has given the government ability to trump up charges against any citizen and execute them with no questions asked which scares the crap out of me.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The 16 year old son chose to go to Yemen. HE made his choice. There is no due process on the battlefield and the terrorists chose places like Yemen, Syria, Pakistan, and others as their headquarters in a war they chose to make.
Choices have consequences. Losing a right to due process when you are actively making war against your nation is the consequences of making that choice.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)Who knew? Maybe you should inform Congress.
The fact is we would be a lot better off treating terrorists as criminals than in trying to make the entire world a "war zone".
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Discussion over.
Solly Mack
(90,763 posts)For everything you've said!
Thank you!
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Or was he eating lunch?
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)That is enough for many here on DU.
I wonder how Mo would feel about droning Bundy and his cohorts. Different song then I bet.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)
I'm not sure anyone is disputing Anwar al-Awlaki was an "enemy of the state", just that to be declared as such it should require more than the president's say-so. Should what would normally require due-process now just require the president's word?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Seriously, we do not check citizenship in a war zone.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)And which foot soldier on the ground was it that killed him? You are intentionally trying to conflate what happened here with some soldier catching some unknown person IN THE ACT, in the middle of a war-zone and only finding out after they've killed that person that it was a US citizen. You're doing this because you KNOW your argument is weak.
They didn't kill him because he was in the process of performing some terrorist activity. They knew who he was and were targeting him for death. The authority to find and kill him was based strictly on the president's say-so.
The government may not check citizenship in a war zone, but I'd like to think when making a list of people they want to find and kill they do enough background checking on the person to know who they are specifically looking for, and would be able to make the case that this person should be on a "kill list". I think they should HAVE to make that case before moving further.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It has been a war zone since the USS Cole.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)is enough to call it a war zone... and I see you avoided pretty much the entire rest of the argument.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It's still active in Yemen and Yemen is basically ground zero for fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, so yeah, Yemen is a war zone because that's where the enemy soldiers in the war are.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)you still haven't addressed any of the rest of my argument, none of which is based on being in a war zone.
Does, and should, the president have the personal authority to put anyone they want, including American citizens, on a kill list. No checks, no balances, no due process of any kind, just the president's word that person is a bad guy, and that's enough.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Was the drone forced to fire in self defense? Was the Drone left with no choice but to fire to save lives? The answer is no. The drone operator had a choice, and they decided for an assassination, in which the individual was targeted.
You mention those who returned to Germany in WW II. Americans fought under the British flag in that same war. Would they be considered equally treasonous? The "Eagle Squadron" personnel were afforded rights and privileges of combatants during the second world war by Hitler's Germany, being treated no differently than any other allied prisoner despite not being from a combatant nation at the time of their capture. So are you suggesting that Hitler's Germany was more civilized toward the treatment of combatants than we were? The Russians would certainly take issue with that assertion. Then again, the Germans would take exception to the treatment of their prisoners by the Russians during that conflict.
Those Americans fighting for Germany were not summarily shot if discovered in the POW camps. They were treated like any other POW. They were never tried for treason, and when they were shot, it was during active hostilities, in other words, a battle. A drone was sent specifically for Anwar al-Awlaki, which means targeted assassination. If you don't recognize the gigantic fucking difference between the two, then I don't know where to begin.
Your ignorance of the details of your examples is both insulting, and disturbing. Whipping out examples that prove nothing about your cause or case is normally the technique of the RW, as an example see Scalia's mis-statement of a previous Supreme Court decision as justification for his vote.
David Barron has no business being a Judge, as his justification for the targeted assassination, which is far different than death as a result of a battle, of an American. Your ignorance of the history is astounding. Your mis-statement of events is astonishing. I don't know if this is because of duplicity, you hope to throw smoke to conceal the issue, or if you are truly that misinformed about history.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Supposing you lived in a country where one person had the power to put you on a kill list without filing charges telling you and the public what you are supposed to have done in order to issue a death warrant on you.
No charges filed, no trial, no conviction.
Just one person with that awesome power.
What kind of political system would you be living in?
A) A Dictatorship
B) A Monarchy or
C) A Democracy
Oh, and by the way, how do you know that Awlaki was an enemy of the state?
Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The idea that Constitutional protections, human rights, and international law can be summarily ignored when it benefits the military should be abhorrent to ALL liberals.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I don't see this as being materially any different to MI6 assassinating an IRA bomb-builder or Mossad assassinating a Hamas organiser. Framing the issue as "someone who believes Americans can be killed without due process" is wilfully and blindly missing a whole lot of relevant context.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)In the case cited by the OP, capture was not an option.
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)Otherwise you sound like Mary Fallin.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)A high percentage of the times the US has been at war, the President at the time has taken a number of measures that were borderline Constitutional. Some weren't so bad, some IMHO were clearly wrong and too far. For instance:
Lincoln: Suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus (borderline, it was a civil war after all and saboteurs in the north were a real concern. On the other hand, there weren't that many incidents. After the first year when it was obvious that this wasn't a real issue, not rescinding it was wrong)
FDR: Sending Japanese citizens from the west coast to relocation camps (way too far, IMHO)
'W': Warrantless wiretapping (way too far, particularly when FISA is/was available. Zero paper trail. We will probably never know who was wiretapped, why and for how long)
'W': Torturing people captured in battle for information (way too far, a horrible crime and ineffective too)
'W'/Obama: Use of predator Drones against suspected terrorist threats in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan. (In my opinion, an understandable if undesirable response to the threat)
'W'/Obama: Expanded surveillance using FISA. (In my opinion, an understandable if undesirable response to the threat)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, we know that in times of crisis, whatever President in office is going to probably go as far as possible to avoid attacks against law abiding US citizens. The question is how far is OK and how far is simply too far and unfortunately, those answers usually aren't given until after the war/threat in question is over. Lincoln and FDR's policies were both deemed Unconstitutional. I suspect some of W's will be too. I think Obama will be exonerated.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)He did not command troops on a battlefield. Indeed, he never stepped on a battlefield.
al-Awlaki publicly expressed vehemently anti-U.S. sentiments and called for jihad, which is protected speech per Brandenburg v. Ohio (which is why the Government didn't arrest him - they knew the charges wouldn't stick).
al-Awlaki may have been involved in the underwear bombing plot, though we only have the biased word of "unnamed Pentagon sources" on that. Even so, the bombing plot would be conspiracy to commit a crime and therefore judicial process applies. The Constitution requires due process so that a person accused of something like this can face their accusers in a court of law and present a defense to a jury of their peers.
Any way you slice it, al-Awlaki's extrajudicial execution is the action of a Dictatorship, not a Constitutional Republic.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)They blew up the Rainbow Warrior killing one member of Greenpeace. Perfectly legal right? I mean, who are we to question such things?
We are not talking about killing a combatant who's identity is not know on the field. We are not talking about someone who has taken up arms and joined an enemy being targeted as part of a group, we knew that terrorists were going to meet there, and we bombed there. We're talking about the decision to use targeted assassination toward an American Citizen. To specifically target the individual. That is very different from the examples you mention. By the way MI6 wasn't supposed to be assassinating anyone in Northern Ireland. That was one of the complaints of the IRA, which is why many in Boston, Chicago, and New York donated money to support the IRA. Back when it was cool to support Terrorists as Freedom Fighters. You know, the way that people demanded boycotts of South Africa and shouted Remember Mandela when he was listed as a Terrorist?
Assassination is different than a battlefield death. A battlefield death is where soldier A shoots at Soldier B and kills him not knowing the identity of Soldier B, merely shooting at the guy in the uniform. In modern war it means shooting the guy holding the rifle. A targeted assassination is where you say. "He we know where this guy is, and we hate this guy, and we want him dead. Somebody kill him." Part of the argument for Embassies is to make sure that the laws are followed relating to American Citizens. To insure that American Citizens are protected. To make sure that the rights of the citizens are enforced. Targeting one for assassination doesn't exactly ring as part of that whole, protecting the citizens thing. Defending their rights and all that.
You can always find an excuse not to follow the rules. What made us different in the old days is that those excuses were offered in few and far between circumstances. Now, any excuse is a good enough reason not to follow the rules, no matter how lame the excuse may be. The rules stopped having the meaning they once did, and we are suffering as a people because of that. First Amendment used to matter, now we're discussing defining what the "Press" is so that selected members of the citizenry will be allowed to have First Amendment rights. We created so many excuses to justify violating that Amendment that now it means whatever the Government decides it means. First Amendment zones, where you are free to go and have your say, and no one need listen. Excuses are always a erosion of a Civil Right, and we should be viewing each excuse with a very critical eye.
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)than water-boarding.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)To reverse themselves on virtually every position they previously held.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)To hell with personality cults.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
If nothing else he's predictable...
