Obama justifies assassination of US Citizens?

[Coito ergo sum]

What I find amazing about this conversation that it is implied that its ok to assasinate non-US citizens. I'm not really sure the nationality of someone is really that relevant on whether its ok to kill them

Either it's OK for the armed forces to use lethal force to take out a serious threat, on home soil or not, or it isn't. The type of passport that threat holds ought not to be relevant to the decision, unless somehow being a US citizen gives a terrorist more rights than one who isn't.

Very true. However, all countries afford greater service to their own citizens. That is why a Brit held prisoner wrongfully in Colombia will receive assistance from the British Embassy, even if he or she appears to likely be guilty of some offense, whereas the British Embassy will not do a thing for a Frenchman there. There is sort of a "having gone one step further" connotation when a country is firing at its own people.

But, conceptually, you are correct.

[Coito ergo sum]

duplicate

[Coito ergo sum]

Er, the simple solution to this is to invoke existing law which automatically revokes the citizenship of any person who claims allegiance with ANY other nation or who wages war on the United States.

If necessary a law can be passed by Congress which explicitly revokes the US citizenship of any citizen whom DHS has probable cause to believe is engaged in terrorist actions against the United States or any other country anywhere outside of United States territory.

Congress has full authority to so revoke citizenship.

Then they aren't citizens and can be "Droned" (new verb evidently) at will under the existing laws regarding the killing of terrorists in military actions.

Errr... where in the Constitution does it say that Congress has that power?

[MrJonno]

I can assure there are British citizens who are part of the Taliban (and almost certainly US ones as well), no way is anyone going to check their passport when someone drops a bomb of them. The UK/US was also killing 1000's of its own citizens in WW2 when we bombed Germany and Japan (ie lots of prisoners got killed)

Now whether we should be dropping bombs on a particular target is a different issue, something is either a legal act of war or it isnt

[Coito ergo sum]

Liberals, on the other hand, have shown themselves, by and large, to be waving the flag and carrying water for the Obama Administration. Witness the unabashed cheerleading from MSNBC with so called Liberals like Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz and whatnot.

Turns out you're wrong....again.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-m ... /#50712700

Tepid. But, at least she is raising the issue. No mention of Obama, of course. None. This is all Holder-focused, and it is a very sanitized discussion, posed as if it just needs clarification and further illumination.

[Coito ergo sum]

The President can't do it on a whim, but he does not need to ask Congress for permission, nor should any President have to. It's a battlefield decision;

So, it's a battlefield decision to drop bombs in Italy, or Uzbehistan or India or Tanzania? Just bomb wherever now? Odd, it was a big deal when a battlefield decision was made during the Vietnam war to bomb Cambodia and Laos. Don't you recall how controversial and "illegal" that was?

And, the US bombing Iraq was called "illegal" by "liberals" when it was justified as part of the war on terrorism and received Congressional authorization. Now, we can bomb the fuck out of Pakistan, Yemen and I guess any other country according to this memo, if it's a "battlefield decision?" No incongruity there?

not every enemy (confirmed enemy, not suspected) even can be brought to trial, and that's the way war is.

Funny, the "Liberals" said that is exactly what had to happen with terrorists because terrorists were criminals and they needed to be arrested and tried. Don't you remember the endless arguments and debates on these threads and in the RDF forums about the requirement that captured "POW's" on the "battlefields" in Afghanistan had to be "tried" as criminals? Even though they were POWs (who don't get tried, merely by virtue of being on the enemy side -- POWs are not criminals, they are captured enemy soldiers held to the end of hostilities and then released).

Were union troops supposed to attempt to capture and try every confirmed rebel?

Different issue. The drone bombing issue would be more akin to the President just deciding to fire cannons across the St. Lawrence into Canada to try to kill a suspected Confederate leader. Wouldn't the President need to consult Congress before firing at another country's territory?

As for what is done with captured terrorists, that's a different matter. But they cannot all be captured. If guilt and thrreat are beyond question

That is not the rule in the memo. Doesn't have to be anywhere close to "beyond question."

and the only options are to launch a strike or ignore them and hope that they'll be easier to capture some other time, I'd opt for the former.

Nothing in the memo suggests that killing must be the only remaining option. You're imprinting your own ideas on when this power would be used on the memo that sets a wildly different standard than that.

I'm not saying the issue is no cause for concern, or that the oversight it has is surely good enough.

What oversight? There isn't any. The decision can be made in secret and is not subject to review.

Of course significant restraints must remain (and I think they're there now),

And, those restraints are.....?

and of course a close eye should be kept on this matter. But I also see no reason to start waving the Tyranny flag, nor would I if someone else were President. I would if I bought into slippery slope arguments, but I don't.

I find it hard to believe that you would not acknowledge that if any Republican were President, and this memo, giving this kind of authority to the President, were released, that there would not be massive blowback from "Liberals". I mean -- for far less, there was marching in the streets and calls for Bush's impeachment, and at every turn. The Patriot Act enacted under Bush, it is an unacceptable violation of civil rights -- reupped under Obama every year -- crickets can be heard from "the Left" and "Liberals." Oh, sure, there is the occasional croak, about how this is "a concern," but nobody is camping outside Obama's house with bullhorns. And ,the criticism is tepid, muted, and couched in terms of "we need more specificity and detail as to when the Administration is going to use this power."

[Coito ergo sum]

I can assure there are British citizens who are part of the Taliban (and almost certainly US ones as well), no way is anyone going to check their passport when someone drops a bomb of them. The UK/US was also killing 1000's of its own citizens in WW2 when we bombed Germany and Japan (ie lots of prisoners got killed)

Now whether we should be dropping bombs on a particular target is a different issue, something is either a legal act of war or it isnt

Exactly -- the memo is equally a concern if interpreted only as justifying assassinations of non-US citizens. It is only more alarming when couched in the terms of US citizens because it is always an eyebrow raiser when a country fires upon its own citizens.

That being said, drone attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the problem. Drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, and wherever else - italy maybe, Russia, Indonesia, whatever. That's the issue. We have authorized wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, like them or not. Waging air wars without Congressional approval is like bombing Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

But, it's an oversimplification that something is either a legal act of war, or it isn't. There are targets that are illegal even in a war. A guy sitting in Pakistan, that says "I love Al Qaeta and hope Al Qaeta wins," and encourages people to commit attacks on the US is a proper target for a done bombing? Or, what about that same guy sitting in London or Berlin?

[MrJonno]

'Authorising' war is some what interesting concept.'declaring war' is a pretty much obsolete and belongs in a different era. You go to war you don't declare it. The UK certainly has not declared war on anyone in since 1942 (Thailand apparently), we just had a bit of a disagreement with North Korea, Afghanistan , Iraq, Argentina etc

Regarding Pakistan and Yemen are dodgy failed states with few friends, they have put a complaint into the UN but until it comes back its 'legal'

[pErvinalia]

Does this really surprise anyone?

Does anyone object?

Of course. You're not aware of the liberals who are speaking out against Obama's civil liberties record?

Of course he's not. It would upset his false dichotomy view of the world.

Linky to the droves of "Liberals" speaking out about Obama's civil liberties record? Mass protests? Marches? Signs? Liberals on MSNBC excoriating the President?

You said "Does anyone object?".

[MrJonno]

It's small scale bombing of potentially dodgy foreigners, people are objecting but as its relatively a small scale action and doesnt put any troops at risk its not a high priority.

The idea that people put as a high political priority on who we go to war with is a bit silly, when you have conscription everyone cares, when its volunteers who are generally part of a narrow part of society (ie the poor) the middle classes may moan about it but doesnt change who they vote for

[Coito ergo sum]

Yup, and I am glad for even the tepid expressions of concern. I wrote "does anyone object" because before I wrote that, nobody had done so here. A couple people have, and it's lukewarm, but welcomed.

Do you think the objections are as widespread and rampant as they would be if Romney was President and this memo came out? Or, would Liberals be saying....well, there are protections and as long as the President is really sure, then this rule makes perfect sense?

[pErvinalia]

Perhaps you should actually read the thread (without your blinkers on).

[Coito ergo sum]

It's small scale bombing of potentially dodgy foreigners, people are objecting but as its relatively a small scale action and doesnt put any troops at risk its not a high priority.

Small scale? There have been hundreds of drone attacks. And, some of those killed were children. And, the CIA estimates about 3400 killed. That, of course, would be the conservative estimate, and normally "anti-war" folks would advance a far bigger number (at least they did so on past issues, typically).

The idea that people put as a high political priority on who we go to war with is a bit silly, when you have conscription everyone cares, when its volunteers who are generally part of a narrow part of society (ie the poor) the middle classes may moan about it but doesnt change who they vote for

The "poor" being in the military is not true in the US. It may have been during Vietnam and such, but not in the last 20 years.

[MrJonno]

Yup, and I am glad for even the tepid expressions of concern. I wrote "does anyone object" because before I wrote that, nobody had done so here. A couple people have, and it's lukewarm, but welcomed.

Do you think the objections are as widespread and rampant as they would be if Romney was President and this memo came out? Or, would Liberals be saying....well, there are protections and as long as the President is really sure, then this rule makes perfect sense?

You're asking people to make judgements on very small scale actions without full knowledge of the facts ( I assume most will be classified). Don't you have security hearings and congress/parliament to ask those sort of questions. Even better relatives of those killed should just sue the US government I assume it will be at least forced to defend itself if they think they have a case

[Coito ergo sum]

Perhaps you should actually read the thread (without your blinkers on).

Link away, brother.

If you have a criticism, let's hear it. Fire away. Give us your rundown as to why the Obama Administration is adopting an illegal strategy, and how the bombings of civilians overseas are therefore illegal. Are they war crimes? Why or why not?