DOJ memo: Drone strikes on U.S. citizens can be legal

[cclaxton]

Aside from the initial revulsion that the gov't lead by a Nobel Prize winner willfully (and sneakily) engages in such activity, the problem is (at least academically) very interesting.
Tis a very dangerous world out there. And the motives for your murder may be as little as a few bucks in your pocket up to political/terrorism based. And you don't need a JDAM to carry it out. The reason to have multiple political parties at odds fundamentally, is to serve as a another system of checks and balances. The problem is, as the "Drone Strikes" are set up, it is without oversight. On the surface, since these are operated by the US Military, you would think you could rely on the conscience of the "Officer and Gentleman/Lady" commanding, but I can tell you with no uncertainty, that they are few and far between. Many have been reduced to wage slaves here at WPAFB, who will do whatever to stay below the radar/on someone's good side/keep their job. That is not to imply any derogatory implication on the US military in any way, rather a statement of the times. Furthermore, there is often someone right next to them that will carry out a dubious order without question.
In some respects, this is much the same argument as "how can you be a Commander in Chief if you've never been commanded?"

Bill,
One of the facts is not correct. These operations are carried out by the CIA, not the military. The Military may be maintaining them, but the CIA runs the missions for these kinds of missions. The command of military operations and CIA operations is under The Executive. There is Congressional Oversight through the Intelligence Committees. Those who attend those meetings are must have security clearances and even Congressmen must keep the information secret.

It's important to note that the political parties are not disagreeing with the policy to kill terrorists who are responsible for prior attacks, and actively planning attacks, whether American Citizens or not. I am fully behind the effort to eliminate these bastards, and am thankful that few loyal Americans must be put in harms way to kill them and to those who run these missions.

The problem with using "local resources" is that you can't always trust the people you hire locally. You don't know who they are talking to, you don't know if they are going to follow the plan exactly, you don't know their judgement. By using Drones, you can control the lethal force exactly as you want. You don't have to disclose the intelligence or the methods to gain information, or put those agents at risk. You also have video and pictures and verification that you don't always get with a local resource.

Many Presidents have not served in the military or law enforcement. And The Founders did not make it a requirement, and Americans like the idea of Civilian Control. In many ways it is better if the President was not in the military. So, to insult Obama for not serving seems empty.

In terms of trusting the Americans serving in the military and CIA: Look at the level of integrity and ethics and morality that Americans have compared to most other nations and you will find Americans are the best. I am proud of being an American for this one reason. Yes, there are going to be a**holes, and criminals and negligents and incompetents, and corrupt people in the military and CIA and in the government. But, those are a tiny percentage often blown out of proportion by the media. The great majority are great people doing difficult jobs and not the best pay. Many are doing their gov't jobs out of patriotism. The majority of other nations suffer from massive police corruption, massive cheating, massive incompetence, market manipulation, organized crime controlling government, etc. We don't have that here in America...and why? Because Americans are good people and we want America to continue to prosper and be a society where people trust each other.

We are trusting our security to the people in the military and CIA and government....shouldn't we return the trust out of simple respect for their risk and their sacrifice? Every day President Obama leaves the White House he puts his life on the line from a terrorist or a crazy person or a domestic militant, and I think he does that for America, even if we strongly disagree with his policies or his politics. Shouldn't we show him the same respect we show a soldier who has seen combat, or is serving in a combat role, at least? While I may not trust Obama with my gun rights, I do trust him to make the decision to kill the terrorists as Commander. That is a burden most of us would not want.
CC

[Corlissimo]

I think that some of these guys need whacked and I dont weep over it but I am uncomfortable with a mechanism existing for it. That is something that can be abused later. If the president wants to authorize it as the commander in chief, well that is why he is paid the big bucks and I will back his play. Leaders exist to navigate the ambiguous situations where regulation breaks down. If the leader misbehaves he can be removed (say impeached) and if he misbehaves too much he can be prosecuted. But no set of rules will ever cover all situations, if there was there would be no need of leaders, just flowcharts. So I think in this case POTUS should take responsibility for authorizing it rather than come up with some convoluted mechanism that can be used by unsrupulous people later to justify whatever they want (think RICO).

I agree with this. The real issue IMO, is that there aren't any defined parameters other than "We smoked so-and-so because he was a terrorist threat."

Considering that it wasn't that long ago that the DHS "identified" Right-wing conservatives, Pro-2A folks (but just the "gun nuts" ones :sarcastic, and returning Veterans as "potential terrorist threats", and it creates an extremely unsettling atmosphere. The potential for easy abuse is pretty obvious. Coupled with man's propensity to abuse power and/or grab more, and pretty soon it could be that, to those in power, anyone who is not one of them becomes "THEM" in their estimation.

(Donning my foil hat now... Again!)


~ Typos brought to you by my laziness & in attention to detail.

[BLR]

Bill,
One of the facts is not correct. These operations are carried out by the CIA, not the military. The Military may be maintaining them, but the CIA runs the missions for these kinds of missions. The command of military operations and CIA operations is under The Executive. There is Congressional Oversight through the Intelligence Committees. Those who attend those meetings are must have security clearances and even Congressmen must keep the information secret.

It's important to note that the political parties are not disagreeing with the policy to kill terrorists who are responsible for prior attacks, and actively planning attacks, whether American Citizens or not. I am fully behind the effort to eliminate these bastards, and am thankful that few loyal Americans must be put in harms way to kill them and to those who run these missions.

The problem with using "local resources" is that you can't always trust the people you hire locally. You don't know who they are talking to, you don't know if they are going to follow the plan exactly, you don't know their judgement. By using Drones, you can control the lethal force exactly as you want. You don't have to disclose the intelligence or the methods to gain information, or put those agents at risk. You also have video and pictures and verification that you don't always get with a local resource.

Many Presidents have not served in the military or law enforcement. And The Founders did not make it a requirement, and Americans like the idea of Civilian Control. In many ways it is better if the President was not in the military. So, to insult Obama for not serving seems empty.

In terms of trusting the Americans serving in the military and CIA: Look at the level of integrity and ethics and morality that Americans have compared to most other nations and you will find Americans are the best. I am proud of being an American for this one reason. Yes, there are going to be a**holes, and criminals and negligents and incompetents, and corrupt people in the military and CIA and in the government. But, those are a tiny percentage often blown out of proportion by the media. The great majority are great people doing difficult jobs and not the best pay. Many are doing their gov't jobs out of patriotism. The majority of other nations suffer from massive police corruption, massive cheating, massive incompetence, market manipulation, organized crime controlling government, etc. We don't have that here in America...and why? Because Americans are good people and we want America to continue to prosper and be a society where people trust each other.

We are trusting our security to the people in the military and CIA and government....shouldn't we return the trust out of simple respect for their risk and their sacrifice? Every day President Obama leaves the White House he puts his life on the line from a terrorist or a crazy person or a domestic militant, and I think he does that for America, even if we strongly disagree with his policies or his politics. Shouldn't we show him the same respect we show a soldier who has seen combat, or is serving in a combat role, at least? While I may not trust Obama with my gun rights, I do trust him to make the decision to kill the terrorists as Commander. That is a burden most of us would not want.
CC

Where did I "insult" Barry? I realize what I did just there, so no need to point it out. Also, I don't believe prior service precludes "Civilian Control" at all. So, I'm not sure I follow that line of thought very well.

Now, I'm climbing out on a limb here as I don't have the time to preform an exhaustive investigation in to this, but I'd venture to say that in the last 40 years, the presidents who've done more to compromise our national security have not served. For example, I'd love to hear a reason for selling F16s and M1s to Egypt. And why selling the ChiComms radiation hardened microchips was a good idea. God knows, those two countries are in my Top 5 lists of stable, egalitarian countries. (I do realize the lack of direct relationship between prior service and selling out the US, but it was to illustrate a point - don't bother to "educate" me.)

I'm not sure I buy into that last paragraph. What has that administration done to deserve my trust? They've certainly done more than a few things to dissuade me from trusting. Want the list? Fast-n-Furious? Green energy "investments?" Def Auth Act? Benghazi? The list is pretty long.

That said, going from academic discussion to practical discussion - issuing a gov't statement to the effect of: If you are in Egypt/Pak/Afgan/et al., you are there at your own risk. Drone strikes are happening, if you associate with the wrong crowd, it's on you; would serve to address any of my concern. However...that is a far cry from drone strikes on US citizens domestically. To be honest, I'm still a bit amazed that the Def. Auth. Act was allowed to stand as was. Even the ACLU squawked over that bit of legislature brilliance.

I tend to view an encroaching gov't presence domestically as a bad thing. I'm not convinced that Barry, Nasty, Dingy, Feinstie, Behner, and the rest really know what's best for me. Nor do I believe they have "best intentions" with respect to my well being. Seems to me they are more concerned with becoming more powerful and more wealthy. Though, I really don't desire to feel like a well cared for child. I'd rather drink my beer, smoke my pipe, fly my plane, drive my care, and enjoy my guns and axes in peace.

[TGS]

To give the government power, like the power to kill citizens without oversight...simply because of trust or "well, he's a good guy" is horribly misguided.

Like......my god, a "pick up a history book or return to 4th grade social studies" level of misguided.

[BaiHu]

To give the government power, like the power to kill citizens without oversight...simply because of trust or "well, he's a good guy" is horribly misguided.

Like......my god, a "pick up a history book or return to 4th grade social studies" level of misguided.

+1-with-nine-zeroes

[JHC]

To give the government power, like the power to kill citizens without oversight...simply because of trust or "well, he's a good guy" is horribly misguided.

Like......my god, a "pick up a history book or return to 4th grade social studies" level of misguided.

Just a decent discussion of how broadly defined criteria are:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/0...cials-opinion/

What is the basis for an American citizen having more legal right to due process when he's at war with the USA than a Yemeni national or whatever? Is it a common sense thing ie intuitively obvious to the casual observer or is there something specific being referenced as a Constitutional basis?

Any person, even if not a citizen has essentially the same rights for due process if arrested for a crime in the US. I've long argued for two tiers of civil rights; one for citizens and another for non-citizens but I've not seen any sign of that.

If we establish that foreign nationals in terrorist orgs at war with the US can be killed but US citizens that have joined those forces cannot without some system of review and oversight, we cannot sustain the logic of that distinction based on our Constitution or law. Soon we will have ROE for these operations like what the troops had in AFG trying to fight McChrystal's interpretation of COIN.

Applying domestic law enforcement guidelines to international war is proven way more misguided across history.

[TGS]

Just a decent discussion of how broadly defined criteria are:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/0...cials-opinion/

What is the basis for an American citizen having more legal right to due process when he's at war with the USA than a Yemeni national or whatever? Is it a common sense thing ie intuitively obvious to the casual observer or is there something specific being referenced as a Constitutional basis?

Any person, even if not a citizen has essentially the same rights for due process if arrested for a crime in the US. I've long argued for two tiers of civil rights; one for citizens and another for non-citizens but I've not seen any sign of that.

If we establish that foreign nationals in terrorist orgs at war with the US can be killed but US citizens that have joined those forces cannot without some system of review and oversight, we cannot sustain the logic of that distinction based on our Constitution or law. Soon we will have ROE for these operations like what the troops had in AFG trying to fight McChrystal's interpretation of COIN.

Applying domestic law enforcement guidelines to international war is proven way more misguided across history.

No, I agree.

I think what you're (still) missing is that most people aren't concerned about not killing terrorists just because they're Americans......it's that we're concerned the process is too open to abuse to be used against people who aren't terrorists...whether maliciously or accidentally.

From reading through the thread, it seems that almost everyone is in agreement that a terrorist should be schwacked before they can carry out their acts....whether they're an American citizen or not. The troubling part that we need to address is a reliable metric which minimizes human error/abuse in identifying who to persecute, as many feel the current system is unacceptable in doing so. It has nothing to do with wanting to play nice and give known, undeniable terrorists a chance to appear on Judge Judy to plead their case.

[JHC]

No, I agree.

I think what you're (still) missing is that most people aren't concerned about not killing terrorists just because they're Americans......it's that we're concerned the process is too open to abuse to be used against people who aren't terrorists...whether maliciously or accidentally.

From reading through the thread, it seems that almost everyone is in agreement that a terrorist should be schwacked before they can carry out their acts....whether they're an American citizen or not. The troubling part that we need to address is a reliable metric which minimizes human error/abuse in identifying who to persecute, as many feel the current system is unacceptable in doing so. It has nothing to do with wanting to play nice and give known, undeniable terrorists a chance to appear on Judge Judy to plead their case.

I should not be mischaracterizing your point of view as "wanting to play nice". I should be staying focused FIRST on the point that there is no legal basis for the distinction of targetted killing standards between citizens and foreign nationals. Whatever standard is developed to authorize forces to terminate with extreme prejuidice an American in an ALQ organization would probably also be applied to the foreign national - legally.

And SECOND that in matters of war, the due process of domestic LE and criminal proceedings are out the window.

And how this is at all different than our legal prohibition on "assassination" is another distinction without a difference.

I haven't seen any scenarios posed where it sounds remotely possible to apply this lethal sanction to political opposition in the US beyond vague what if they turn this rationale on us? If the circumstances deteriorate to the point that the national command authority is engaging in targetted killings of Americans, in America then so many other Rubicons have been crossed that whatever oversight and standards created in this process will hardly matter.

[ezthumper]

Bill,

We are trusting our security to the people in the military and CIA and government....shouldn't we return the trust out of simple respect for their risk and their sacrifice? Every day President Obama leaves the White House he puts his life on the line from a terrorist or a crazy person or a domestic militant, and I think he does that for America, even if we strongly disagree with his policies or his politics. Shouldn't we show him the same respect we show a soldier who has seen combat, or is serving in a combat role, at least? While I may not trust Obama with my gun rights, I do trust him to make the decision to kill the terrorists as Commander. That is a burden most of us would not want.
CC

The president is voted in on a popularity contest and his cronies are vetted by the same man that won that contest and not scrutinized for moral character like our military and CIA/FBI/NSA.

In order for me to work around priority 'A' resources, I had a back ground checks that went all the way back to my grade school. Not to mention trolling my neighbor hood where I grew up. I had to go through steps to become PRP cert. Personal Reliability Program.

1. The Department of Defense shall support the national security of the United States by maintaining an effective nuclear deterrent while protecting the public health, safety, and environment. For that reason, nuclear-weapons require special consideration because of their policy implications and military importance, their destructive power, and the political consequences of an accident or an unauthorized act. The safety, security, control, and effectiveness of nuclear weapons are of paramount importance to the security of the United States.
2. Nuclear weapons shall not be subject to loss, theft, sabotage, unauthorized use, unauthorized destruction, unauthorized disablement, jettison, or accidental damage.
3. Only those personnel who have demonstrated the highest degree of individual reliability for allegiance, trustworthiness, conduct, behavior, and responsibility shall be allowed to perform duties associated with nuclear weapons, and they shall be continuously evaluated for adherence to PRP standards.

A presidential candidate does not fall under the same scrutiny, nor is he held to or put through this types of screening. Yet we continually elect presidents based on some star search requirements.

[TCinVA]

No, I agree.

I think what you're (still) missing is that most people aren't concerned about not killing terrorists just because they're Americans......it's that we're concerned the process is too open to abuse to be used against people who aren't terrorists...whether maliciously or accidentally.

Given how many examples of government using power to commit truly horrible acts there are in recent history and the knowledge that fundamental human nature is no different today than it was less than a century ago, it's perfectly sane for us to consider possible abuses...because where there is power there will be abuse of it.

Anyone who pretends that our society is somehow completely different to the point where it can't happen here is hopelessly naive.