Do You Support Assassination or "Targeted Killing?"

[lawrocket 3]

A year and a half ago, President Obama approved placing Anwar al-Awlaki on the list for targets of "Targeted Killing." As we know, the CIA did just that last week.

Some people find there to be a difference between "assassination" and "targeted killing." As a lawyer, I have an appreciation for the semantics relating to legality/illegality. Assassination is illegal, targeted killign is not.

Still, I find both to be summary executions. Last week, the US government performed a premeditated execution of an American citizen without affording due process of law. No arrest, trial, conviction or appeal. The legal justification for same comes straight out of the Dubya playbook of legal juking and sidestepping.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

I'm not sure if I agree that due process was not necessarily afforded. Are we sure that there was not a legal proceeding declaring him an enemy of the state?

I understand the slippery slope we get on if we allow targeting killing of US citizens. On the other hand, there is another slipperly slope if we are not allowed to attack US citizens who are engaged in armed conflict with the United States, especially if those citizens are abroad.

I haven't voted in your poll, but I lean toward, "Yes, but with appropriate judicial safeguards in place."

- Dan G

[CanuckInUSA 0]

The politically correct answer is "No", the real answer is "Yes". If someone is an enemy of the state, they are an enemy. Of course who is to say the state is right when they tell us who the enemies are. Of course one thing to remember about the current so called enemy, they could give a rats ass about what people think and actually want people to be politically correct. Imagine if Russians during World War II were politically correct. The Russians were just as ruthless (sometimes even more ruthless) than their invaders, the Germans.

I do find it funny that when GWB did something like this, people on the left (especially their media) went ape shit and now that Obama is doing the same thing the people on the right are going ape shit. There is no shortage of apes and plenty of shit in partisan politics.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I agree that due process was not necessarily afforded

I am. It doesn't seem as though any warrant other than a death warrant was ever signed.

Quote

Are we sure that there was not a legal proceeding declaring him an enemy of the state

Yep. If the FBI or US Marshalls are involved, then a judicial proceeding is involved. Since the CIA was involved in actually executing him, one can rest assured that a court of law was not involved.

Quote

there is another slipperly slope if we are not allowed to attack US citizens who are engaged in armed conflict

Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution specifically deals with this situation. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Even for a person levying war against the United States, the penalty requires a conviction based upon testimony of two witnesses in court. So what we have here is an American who is accused of committing an act of treason, as is specifically described in the Constitution.

There are two slippery slopes. One is that adherence to the Constitution can cause problems. The other is that lack of adherence to the Constitution can cause problems. My personal preference is that the former occur.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

I agree that due process was not necessarily afforded

I am. It doesn't seem as though any warrant other than a death warrant was ever signed.

Quote

Are we sure that there was not a legal proceeding declaring him an enemy of the state

Yep. If the FBI or US Marshalls are involved, then a judicial proceeding is involved. Since the CIA was involved in actually executing him, one can rest assured that a court of law was not involved.

Quote

there is another slipperly slope if we are not allowed to attack US citizens who are engaged in armed conflict

Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution specifically deals with this situation. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Even for a person levying war against the United States, the penalty requires a conviction based upon testimony of two witnesses in court. So what we have here is an American who is accused of committing an act of treason, as is specifically described in the Constitution.

There are two slippery slopes. One is that adherence to the Constitution can cause problems. The other is that lack of adherence to the Constitution can cause problems. My personal preference is that the former occur.

It sounds like a trial in absentia would have been appropriate. In fact the more I think about it the more I like the idea for people like this guy. If he didn't like it he would have every opportunity to come home and defend himself. Failing that the targeted killing would have much more legitimacy. I suppose there are those that would argue that such a trial would amount to free publicity for the traitor, but I would counter that said publicity would be a modest price in the long war to show the world that the US remains a country of justice.

[BIGUN 1,071]

I cannot answer the poll as the question uses "Assassination" and "Targeted Killing" as synonyms; when they are not, with only a "Yes" or "No" response.

There is also Executive Order 12333 Section 2.11 Prohibition on Assassination. "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in or conspire to engage in assassination."

HOWEVER:

Quote

As Commander in Chief, the President has the constitutional authority to command the use of deadly force by troops in war, whether it has been declared by Congress or thrust upon us by enemy attack or invasion.46 As noted, the applicable legal framework in a war is then the law of war, under which the killing of enemy combatants is lawful, abseittreacherous means. The legality of targeted killing then turns on the target and on the means; there is still some subcategory of targeted killing which is unlawful. 47 The President may therefore order targeted killing as long as it is consistent with the law of armed conflict.4S The constitutionality of "wartime rules" for deadly force, however, is not quite as "patent" when we leave the arena of conventional war and enter the twilight zone of terrorist attacks. Undoubtedly the President still has the constitutional authority under the Commander in Chief Clause to "repel sudden attacks,,, 49 but that authority has traditionally had a real time dimension or at least an inherent imminence requirement-by analogy to the doctrine of self-defense at international law. 50

A terrorist attack, however, is usually over before it can be repelled in real time. Moreover, when the attack is a suicide attack, it is impracticable to strike back. Additionally, alternatives to force that may be effective to deter state-sponsored attacks are ineffective against freelance terrorists.51 Yet, as we have seen, even at home in the United States, the government may constitutionally use deadly force to prevent a dangerous suspect from doing harm to others if no peaceful means is left to apprehend him.52 It would be anomalous if the Constitution did not vest the same authority in the President to use deadly force against a terrorist if he has exhausted other means of apprehending him, as our co contributors to the symposium discuss under the rubric of anticipatory self-defense.53 Moreover, if the terrorist attacks are continuing, "the timing of the preemptive action relative to the expected attack is irrelevant, since the various terrorist acts may be regarded as part of a continuous operation...54 Preemptive deadly force is then no longer anticipatory self-defense-it is just self defense. 55

Our conclusion so far, then, is that the Constitution does not prohibit the targeted killing abroad of foreign nationals who lack a substantial connection with the United States, at least in anticipatory self-defense when other more peaceful means of defense have been exhausted. But if it does not prohibit it, does it follow that the President alone may order it? Or that he can do so in the face of a statutory prohibition? Courts have recognized the President's authority both to fight a de facto war56 and to interpose force abroad to protect Americans and their property without prior legislative authority. 57 Necessity gives rise to the constitutional authority in both cases, and also justifies the President in exercising it without awaiting legislation. It does not follow that he could defy inconsistent legislation. Although judges have alluded to the President's inherent constitutional authority to command military troops at war,58 that authority is less clearly implicated in targeted killing than in his authority to defend Americans and their property from attack. 59 Yet the courts which have recognized the latter in the absence of legislation have never held that Congress could not restrict that authority, or at least regulate it under the necessary and Proper Clause.6o To quote Justice Jackson, cases have "intimated that the President might act in external affairs without congressional authority, but not that he might act contrary to an Act of Congress."61 The President's authority to do so, like the constitutional authority for self-defense itself, may well depend on the necessity for action and the gravity of the risk, but depending on those factors would leave room for Congress to ban or regulate targeted killings except in the extreme case of an otherwise unavoidable catastrophic attack. 62

SOURCE: http://www.law.upenn.edu/academics/institutes/ilp/targetedkilling/papers/BanksRavenHansenLegalFramework.pdf pps. 677-679

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Exigent circumstance..... There was no way to make adequate service of process, so BO issued a bench warrant, which was "taped to the warhead of a hellfire missile." Ergo... Process served. Three dead enemy combatants to boot. Same-oh, same-oh.
Ethnicity, and Nationality all go by the wayside in a shooting event. The US Military has various nationalities in uniform, but to the enemy, they are all the same. Americans.
So far, there has been a serious shit load of death served up to practically every mid-eastern nation whose citizens decided it would be a hoot to try to kill some Americans.
When the shooting starts, very little else matters except the uniform one wears. That's reality, not lofty classroom moralizing.

[dreamdancer 0]

and the us is bankrupted as a result...

(get ready to learn chinese)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[BoogeyMan 0]

Nah..... The US is still printing $$$ that the world will suck up.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

The politically correct answer is "No", the real answer is "Yes". If someone is an enemy of the state, they are an enemy. Of course who is to say the state is right when they tell us who the enemies are. Of course one thing to remember about the current so called enemy, they could give a rats ass about what people think and actually want people to be politically correct. Imagine if Russians during World War II were politically correct. The Russians were just as ruthless (sometimes even more ruthless) than their invaders, the Germans.

I'm not sure about what is politically correct, but failing to get a civil indictment against this guy was abysmally stupid. I am not necessarily suggesting civil prosecution instead of military action--but I am certainly suggesting that it is necessary in addition to military action.

This man was, legally, a US citizen. He has also spent time in the USA, presumably has connections in the USA, and seemed fairly savvy in terms of the ways of the modern world (that isn't true of some of these Arab terrorist guys).

His weapon of choice was bombs. But, as someone who was legally a US citizen, he could have changed his weapon of choice from bombs to lawyers at any time. And sometimes a good lawyer can do more damage, in certain ways, than a bomb can.

This guy, it seems, chose not to pursue the legal angle. But it was--as I say--very stupid for the administration not to have a "Plan B" in place in case he did.

Suppose, for example, he'd showed up at a US embassy unaccompanied (except of course for a lawyer) and unarmed (except of course for a camera to pass on to the press). Suppose he'd then announced that he was a US citizen, did not admit guilt, but certainly both was willing to and insisted upon facing civilian justice on US soil. How would that situation have been dealt with? The administration needed a "Plan B" to deal with that situation, given that he was a US citizen.

I have no problem with "Plan A" if he is encountered in hostile circumstances on the battlefield.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[lawrocket 3]

Your reality is a subjective feeling. We've got a government summarily killing those it views as terrorists. I'd say that so far, it appears legitimate.

But what has the target done? Apparently, the only definitive thing they have on him is that he's made YouTube videos calling for jihad and the killing of Americans. Yep, bad stuff. Inciting others to do bad stuff. Maybe even suggesting ways to do it.

That's worthy of a Hellfire? Here I had always labored under the belief that we afford a trial to people. The opportunity to confront the accuser and a presumption of innocence.

Nope. instead we are facing arguments that due process is afforded only in those circumstances where some exigency does not exist. Such a nice precedent. The second-in-command of the US has notably called Tea Partiers terrorists and has many who agree with him.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Apparently, the only definitive thing they have on him is that he's made YouTube videos calling for jihad and the killing of Americans. Yep, bad stuff. Inciting others to do bad stuff. Maybe even suggesting ways to do it.

If that is all they have.... And we may never find out what acts he might have been a part of.... Then it seems that he did not get due process.

Not a big fan of killing without some form of due process.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Last week, the US government performed a premeditated execution of an American citizen without affording due process of law. No arrest, trial, conviction or appeal. The legal justification for same comes straight out of the Dubya playbook of legal juking and sidestepping.

Obamer claims he has legal justification, but he won't tell the public what that is, because "it's a secret":

"The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans"
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm not sure about what is politically correct, but failing to get a civil indictment against this guy was abysmally stupid. I am not necessarily suggesting civil prosecution instead of military action--but I am certainly suggesting that it is necessary in addition to military action.

So the government should be obtaining civil indictments against every opposing leader, or just the ones that are American citizens? It seems a bit strange that we even need to think about their citizenship in such a situation. This is a war and we've lost thousands of soldiers to it, and many more with serious life long injuries.

As for it being rated a summary execution - is it our fault that our military force is that much better than the other side? A lot of unequal forces have lead to some pretty unpleasant results for the losing side.

I'd be concerned if we were sending hitmen out into other countries to kill off people saying unpopular stuff. But there doesn't seem to be any question that this guy was a lead player - a general or colonel type - of Al Queda.

Quote

Suppose, for example, he'd showed up at a US embassy unaccompanied (except of course for a lawyer) and unarmed (except of course for a camera to pass on to the press). Suppose he'd then announced that he was a US citizen, did not admit guilt, but certainly both was willing to and insisted upon facing civilian justice on US soil. How would that situation have been dealt with? The administration needed a "Plan B" to deal with that situation, given that he was a US citizen.

Why? We don't have a prior indictment when most criminals are caught by the police.

Not sure how likely it is, however, that a person with extensive history of attempted killings would turn himself in for a nearly certain life sentence.

[BoogeyMan 0]

You bet my reality is subjective. I've been in a shooting event. Very difficult to be objective with high velocity bullets flying around. Very noisy, too.
Sir Thomas More would be proud of your attitude. That's also the same type of airy rhetoric that allowed Hitler to legally gain power. Despots hide behind that type of thinking. Brush up on your Thomas Jefferson, counselor.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

So the government should be obtaining civil indictments against every opposing leader, or just the ones that are American citizens? It seems a bit strange that we even need to think about their citizenship in such a situation. This is a war and we've lost thousands of soldiers to it, and many more with serious life long injuries.

It's certainly not a war on the scale of World War II, and we've already established a precedent of giving due process of law to alleged US citizens accused of Nazi war crimes involving tens of thousands of deaths.

President George H.W. Bush--not generally considered a bleeding heart liberal--formally apologized for the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. We ought not repeat our mistakes--again, given that we are faced with a conflict less serious than World War II.

Yes, we should get indictments against (a) US citizens with a right to return to US soil; (b) anyone currently on US soil; (c) anyone we'd prefer to prosecute through civilian means. There aren't a lot of US citizens out there who are responsible for "thousands of" US deaths. It won't destroy us to follow due process of law for the few that are.

Quote

As for it being rated a summary execution - is it our fault that our military force is that much better than the other side? A lot of unequal forces have lead to some pretty unpleasant results for the losing side.

If we are so superior to the other side then we have the luxury of conducting ourselves in a civilized fashion even if the other side does not.

Quote

I'd be concerned if we were sending hitmen out into other countries to kill off people saying unpopular stuff. But there doesn't seem to be any question that this guy was a lead player - a general or colonel type - of Al Queda.

I don't think there was any question that Adolf Eichmann was a lead player in the Nazi movement--but Israel gave him due process of law. Admittedly Israel did go outside Argentine law in capturing him, but they issued a formal apology to Argentina, which Argentina accepted, shortly thereafter. I'm quite concerned with why we feel that rules of conduct by which civilized nations conduct themselves no longer seem to apply to us.

We are acting like we are dealing with a situation so unusual, so unprecedented, that we can throw out the window a code of conduct by which civilized nations behave that has been developed over, literally, centuries. That's not an accurate assessment of the current situation. The world's a dangerous place but this isn't the first time that the world's been a dangerous place.

Quote

Why? We don't have a prior indictment when most criminals are caught by the police.

Without an indictment he would have been free to get a US passport and freely travel to the US. He could have turned up at a US embassy anywhere in the world--not necessarily Yemen--where not playing by the book would have come at significant political cost.

Also if someone is truly responsible for "thousands" of deaths, it might be prudent to spend more time on a formal indictment than you would on the guy who charges $100 on a stolen credit card before the theft is reported and the card is canceled.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[livendive 8]

If it's ok to lob mortars over the front lines, in hopes of getting the command structure in the back, it's ok to aim explosives at a car carrying a highly effective recruiter for the enemy. I don't consider this an execution per say, but rather the well-executed removal of a valid military target. Then again, I really have no problem with assassinations either...better 1 bad guy than 3,000 uniforms per side.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[quade 3]

When idiots like Ann Coulter toss around the word "treason" they really diminish its meaning. A terrorist such as al-Awlaki is committing treason and he's publicly admitting it. By doing so, I have no issues whatsoever with whatever steps are required to make him stop; including a bit of Hellfire being launched against him.

I'm sure as heck not going to lose any sleep over it and I seriously doubt President Obama is either.

Now, if we started launching drone attacks at the guys protesting Wall Street, sure, you've got a completely different situation, but some fuckwad in some fuckwad country whose primary goal is to kill innocent US civilians? Oh for fuck sake; gimme a break.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

President George H.W. Bush--not generally considered a bleeding heart liberal--formally apologized for the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. We ought not repeat our mistakes--again, given that we are faced with a conflict less serious than World War II.

You're really comparing this to the internment of all Japanese in WWII? Really? It's basically like taking a shit on your entire argument.

And then you put out another total irrelevancy - how the Israelis caught Eichmann AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER. Let's not be so retarded - we tried bombing Hitler to kill him, just didn't succeed. Just as we tried bombing to kill Hussein at the opening of Gulf War II.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

That's also the same type of airy rhetoric that allowed Hitler to legally gain power. Despots hide behind that type of thinking.

My opinion is entirely different from yours. Hitler legally gained power by pointing to classes of people that he believed were not worthy of protection.

As far as despots hiding behind that attitude, note that despots have absolute power that is not bound by rule of law. For example, if there is something like the US Constitution that has a whole section relating to the process for American citizens who take up with the enemy, a despot would ignore that section.

Rule of law is anathema to despots. We've got what appears to be caprice with regard to the Constitution.

Note: the COnstitution really stands in the way of governmental officials. The current POTUS is no different from the previous one, only at least Dubya lied about it like a proper American...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

but some fuckwad in some fuckwad country whose primary goal is to kill innocent US civilians? Oh for fuck sake; gimme a break.

The Constitution isn't there to protect those with a popular ideology. It's there to protect those whom we would hate. The government's job is to protect from a lynch mob, not to preempt it.

I absolutely understand why the guy needed to die. And I'd be lying if there wasn't a part of me that hopes that he had a few seconds of realization about what was about to happen. My feelings on the subject are tempered with my thoughts. Feelings versus thoughts.

I think it's a dangerous precedent.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

but some fuckwad in some fuckwad country whose primary goal is to kill innocent US civilians? Oh for fuck sake; gimme a break.

The Constitution isn't there to protect those with a popular ideology. It's there to protect those whom we would hate. The government's job is to protect from a lynch mob, not to preempt it.

I absolutely understand why the guy needed to die. And I'd be lying if there wasn't a part of me that hopes that he had a few seconds of realization about what was about to happen. My feelings on the subject are tempered with my thoughts. Feelings versus thoughts.

I think it's a dangerous precedent.

Except what he was doing was more than simply voicing unpopular ideology. He was an admitted terrorist leader.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

You're really comparing this to the internment of all Japanese in WWII? Really? It's basically like taking a shit on your entire argument.

And then you put out another total irrelevancy - how the Israelis caught Eichmann AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER. Let's not be so retarded - we tried bombing Hitler to kill him, just didn't succeed. Just as we tried bombing to kill Hussein at the opening of Gulf War II.

Yes the war was over.

If Congress votes for a formal declaration of war in the present situation, I will retract my statements. If not, my position stands. If we stop short of a formal declaration of war, then we must also stop short of the kind of uncivilized behavior that a state of war sometimes justifies.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

And I'd be lying if there wasn't a part of me that hopes that he had a few seconds of realization about what was about to happen.

How much better it would have been if he'd had, not a few seconds, but a few years of realization about what was about to happen. A jury of 12 men and women could have given him that.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[BoogeyMan 0]

It would seem your argument, while commendable, is not reality based. The Constitution extends no farther than US borders. You know that Chicago's O'Hara Airport, while land locked, is a point of entry. A US border point. You know that warrantless searches are conducted there daily.
Despots and tyrannical governments do indeed use the law and legality to their advantage.
Saddams Bathist Tribunals that executed 100's of thousands. "Legally".
Saudi Arabia's "legal" butchery of citizens for what would be misdemeanors elsewhere.
Russia's Siberian Gulags... "Legal"
I won't begin on the horrors in Africa. All "Legal"
These events are current and on going. All "Legal".
Sadly. the real world feeds on decent peoples who think the law will be the end all. Remember Auschwitz?