'State Secrets' Cited By White House To Block Targeted Killings Suit...

[LibocalypseNow]

Just heard today that this Administration is now also pushing for more easily obtained Internet Wire-Taps. I don't see any "Hope" or "Change" with this Administration. Just more simple mantras for simple minds.

 

[Madeline]

"Obama supporters (and the conservatives who not coincidentally support him only in his Bush-replicating approach to the war on terror) who are dutifully insisting that the President not only has the right to order American citizens killed without due process, but to do so in total secrecy, on the ground that Awlaki is a Terrorist and Traitor, are embracing those accusations without having the slightest idea whether they're actually true. All they know is that Obama has issued these accusations, which is good enough for them. That's the authoritarian mind, by definition: if the Leader accuses a fellow citizen of something, then it's true -- no trial or any due process at all is needed and there is no need even for judicial review before the decreed sentence is meted out, even when the sentence is death.

For those reciting the "Awlaki-is-a-traitor" mantra, there's also the apparently irrelevant matter that Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution (the document which these same Obama supporters pretended to care about during the Bush years) provides that "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Treason is a crime that the Constitution specifically requires be proven with due process in court, not by unilateral presidential decree. And that's to say nothing of the fact that the same document -- the Constitution -- expressly forbids the deprivation of life "without due process of law."

To accept the word of the president - when he expressly offers no evidence and says in fact any evidence is legally blocked from being seen - on trust alone that someone is a terrorist is to ignore the fact that of of all the people held as terrorists at Gitmo over the last decade, over 70% were found to be not guilty of terrorism - the government's claims were found to be wrong when they had to stand up to even the most meager of judicial reviews - and released. The government has shown they are more often wrong than right when it comes to decreeing that someone is a terrorist, yet there is a considerable faction who, seemingly unaffected by external stimuli and immune to learning from these mistakes, continue to invest absolute trust and assume total accuracy every time the government makes that decree.

"If the president says he's a terrorist, he's a terrorist." Period, full stop, that's all you need. Revealingly, this level of childlike belief in the infallibility of the president only extends to when he wants to kill, imprison, or torture Muslims. When the president says something positive about the economy or health care or his new policy, we all correctly remain skeptical and want to see the evidence ourselves to determine its veracity. Regardless of our political biases, nearly everyone living has come to recognize that politicians often lie and are often wrong and what they say should not reflexively be taken at face value. For some reason though, for a considerable portion of people (authoritarians) this sensible skepticism does not apply to matters of defense, no matter how many times the facts eventually demonstrate the government is wrong as a matter of routine. These people are now willing to have someone murdered far from any battlefield or war zone and not engaged in any hostile actions, merely because the president in the tone of pure dictator or king, has decreed it. "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" be damned. Invoke the word "terrorism" and they'll line up behind whatever you say or do, even while clinging to being self-professed "Constitutionalists."

A simple question for those who see no problem in vesting this power in a single man without any outside checks, verification, adjudication, or accountability: If the President has the power to order American citizens killed with no due process, and to do so in such complete secrecy that no courts can even review his decisions, then what doesn't he have the power to do?

Quentin, why couldn't there be a judicial or legislative hearing after the execution? If the POTUS abused his power, impeach him/convict him of murder/whatnot. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than nothing.

Once the danger has passed, what further need is there for secrecy?

Is that a serious question?

Because Awlaki would already be dead, the assassination order would already be carried out, and if the government's claim turned out to be wrong - as it demonstrably has in the vast majority of similar cases over the last 10 years - then they'd have killed an innocent person and established a precedent for doing so.

This whole issue rests on whether the government can completely do away with the legal process guaranteed in the Constitution if it simply invokes "national security" and "state secrets." It removes any ability to provide a check on this power or temper its abuse.

If we can kill then attempt to adjudicate after the fact - and that isn't at all what the government is arguing for here, rather they want to kill and then never allow for any adjudication -in any case that poses a potential risk to people, then why not do that for everyone suspected of a capital crime? Why not kill everyone, rather than charge or try them, who might be a murderer then try them after the fact and if it turns out they were innocent declare a mulligan and sanction those responsible?

Because that's not a system of laws, because that's nothing like the established order our Constitution set up and binds us to, because that's like something out of Alice in Wonderland.

"Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first -- verdict afterward."

"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"

"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.

"I won't!" said Alice.

"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.

Because that's madness.

The question is why the need for secrecy and illegal assassination orders in the first place.

There's a need for extra-judicial assasinations because life is not a Disney movie. I see no reason to keep them secret after the danger has passed and I don't think they're illegal.

 

[Madeline]

Just heard today that this Administration is now also pushing for more easily obtained Internet Wire-Taps. I don't see any "Hope" or "Change" with this Administration. Just more simple mantras for simple minds.

By all means, let's limit our survelliance to landlines. Because we know, no terrorists are using Skype or anything.

Jesus you sound like a horse's ass on this thread, LibocalypseNow. You have a thought in your pea-brain other than "I hate Obama"?

 

[QUENTIN]

Actually, Quent, the hypothetical I offered was designed to explore the basic principle. We can always get down and dirty on the individual facts of any case (and they will ALL be different) once we have an agreement on the basic principles involved.

But until that time, there can be no actual communication. For example, there's no point in having any discussion with you about the "death penalty" if you happen to be an absolutist in your opposition to any death penalty. No example, no principle will ever suffice to bridge the gap between you absolutist opposition and my arguably nuanced agreement with the idea of lawful execution.

As to the order authorizing the "hit" on Alawki, if you are absolutely opposed to any such governmental activity, then it will not really matter what specific examples I offer. The real world case or my hypothetical example or the Nazi saboteurs' case. You'd always land on the same conclusion: "I'm against it!"

But because the cases are very different, not just in details but in substance, they don't demonstrate this.

One could totally rationally and reasonably and consistently agree with the government's right to kill those German spies on legal grounds. They were captured in the act, they were wearing uniforms, given a military tribunal commensurate with their status as foreign soldiers acting on orders of a foreign government as spies, found guilty in that military court proceeding, and then executed as that's the sentence for such a conviction.

That same person could totally rationally and reasonably and consistently disagree with the government's right to kill Awlaki (it's al-Awlaki by the way, not Alawki) because he has not been captured in any act, not tried by any court (military tribunal would be inappropriate for him because he's not military, but even that would be something), not found guilty or even been charged with any crime, and they're trying to execute him without sentence or conviction, merely on the president's imperial and secrets-based decree.

It's not the same basic principle at work because it's not just a different of a few details, the cases aren't anything alike. In one, the established process of law was followed, in the other it's being circumvented entirely.

You are somewhere between quibbling and babbling.

Oh, by the way, it's Awlaki in my book and I couldn't give a rat's ass about the al- shit. ****, even you knew who was under discussion!

Only if you ignore that in the examples you gave, the normal and established legal process was being followed, while in this case, the process is being circumvented.

It's a huge distinction. It's the whole reason this is controversial and contentious.

If Awlaki was being executed after being found guilty by a military tribunal after being captured in the commission of a terrorist act, then what the Administration is doing wouldn't be such a problem. It is because that's not at all what's going on. They're just imposing a death sentence by imperial decree. That's not quibbling, it's night and day.

And yes, it's Awlaki, I only mentioned the al- thing because I thought that might be confusing you, since you wrote his name wrong repeatedly over the last few pages every time you mentioned him. I'm not a grammar/spelling Nazi, but if you're saying someone deserves to be assassinated, I figured you should know their name.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

This Administration just announced that they will never engage in Cyber-Attacks against the Iranians. Aw how nice & sweet of them. They also announced that they will now be pushing for more easily obtained Internet Wire-Taps here in this country. So i guess American Citizens should fear the U.S. Government more than the Iranians do. How sad.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

You are somewhere between quibbling and babbling.

Oh, by the way, it's Awlaki in my book and I couldn't give a rat's ass about the al- shit. ****, even you knew who was under discussion!

Only if you ignore that in the examples you gave, the normal and established legal process was being followed, while in this case, the process is being circumvented.

LOL!

Please share the information with the class, Quentin.

What exactly (providing source materials and links, by all means) are the "normal and established legal process[es]" for ordering a hit on an enemy?



You be all funny and shit.


But you have no credibility here at this juncture. Are you SERIOUSLY wishing to be heard to say that there is anything new and unprecedented about a Presidential authorization to our military guys or intelligence operatives to "hit" an enemy, particularly in time of war?

That's ridiculous on its face. What MAY (or may not) be "new" is that this situation involves an American citizen being on the list.

And while I readily concede that there ARE troubling aspects to this particular twist, I have yet to see how the underlying principle is changed. If it's not ok for some foreign piece of shit enemy to try to commit sabotage or espionage against us (and it is punishable in some cases by summary execution), then why would it suddenly be somehow ok for an American citizen to do it, but not face such dire possible consequences?

 

[QUENTIN]

There's a need for extra-judicial assasinations because life is not a Disney movie. I see no reason to keep them secret after the danger has passed and I don't think they're illegal.

I'm not arguing life is like a Disney movie. How is my contention that the rule of law is important and we can't vest one man with supreme authority to have people assassinated based on his order alone any more Utopian or less realistic than your contention that the rule of law doesn't always apply and we can trust one man with that power.

How on Earth would evidence against Awlaki being reviewed by a federal judge put us in greater danger? It wouldn't. The only reason to make the "evidence" against Awlaki a secret is to avoid accountability, avoid having to answer to anyone or enter into a process where if the evidence isn't sufficient someone else has the authority to say "No, you can't do that."

You're the one trying to turn life into a Disney movie.

"Sentence first, verdict afterward! Off with his head!"

By the way, extrajudicial, by definition, means illegal. An "extrajudicial killing" is an "illegal killing" that its sole definition, all it means. Saying you don't think extrajudicial killings are illegal is like saying you don't think crime is criminal. It's a pure contradiction in terms.

Just heard today that this Administration is now also pushing for more easily obtained Internet Wire-Taps. I don't see any "Hope" or "Change" with this Administration. Just more simple mantras for simple minds.

By all means, let's limit our survelliance to landlines. Because we know, no terrorists are using Skype or anything.

Jesus you sound like a horse's ass on this thread, LibocalypseNow. You have a thought in your pea-brain other than "I hate Obama"?

For those insisting that the Government must have the technological ability to eavesdrop on any and all communications in order to stop Terrorists and criminals, what are you going to do about in-person communications? By this logic, the Government should install eavesdropping devices in all private homes and public spaces, provided they promise only to listen in when the law allows them to do so (I believe there was a [ame="http://www.amazon.com/1984-Signet-Classics-George-Orwell/dp/0451524934"]book[/ame] written about that once). For those insisting that the Government must have the physical ability to spy on all communications, what objections could one have to such a proposal? We've developed this child-like belief that all Bad Things can be prevented -- we can be Kept Safe from all dangers -- provided we just vest enough power in the Government to protect us all.

I'm assuming you must have supported Bush's warrantless surveillance program Madeline. Now that you apparently support giving the government unfettered access to all internet communication, I have to say, you know terrorists aren't meaning in person or anything. Skype and e-mail and text message and phone calls are only going to get a portion of terrorist communication. If we want to stop them and protect ourselves, we'll have to bug every home, office, private, and public space, right? Why not? Terrorists will use that too, the government has to have access to what they say or we're doomed.

Do you have a thought in your head other than "The leader is good, the leader is great, I surrender my will as of this date"?

 

[Liability]

I also did not say that a military tribunal HAS to be secret. But it sure as hell CAN be.

Well, for your pathetic little strawman to work it would have to be secret.

But, stupid, I didn't offer any strawman, pathetic or otherwise.

When we are at war with the likes of al qaeda, you ignorant nitwit, the need for military and intelligence SECRECY is pretty ******* obvious. Even a complete pinhead like you ought to be able to grasp the glaringly obvious.

But, considering that it's you, perhaps not.

 

[QUENTIN]

What exactly (providing source materials and links, by all means) are the "normal and established legal process[es]" for ordering a hit on an enemy?

"You can't do it. That's illegal. The government has no authority to put out 'hits' on anyone."

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

There's also Ronald Reagan's executive order signed in 1981 explicitly barring it:

Executive Order 12333 - United States Intelligence Activities

"No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

And before the Geneva Conventions were first enacted, Abraham Lincoln -- in the middle of the Civil War -- directed Francis Lieber to articulate rules of conduct for war, and those were then incorporated into General Order 100, signed by Lincoln in April, 1863. Here is part of what it provided, in Section IX, entitled "Assassinations":

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD

The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such intentional outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.

Egg on your face, huh?

The government has surely had people assassinated far from any battlefield before. Every time they've done that it's been illegal. The government has known that and done it in secret and tried to hide it because it's illegal. This is the first time it's announcing it and then trying to find some legal rationale to justify it so that it isn't looked at as plainly what it is - a crime, simple murder. If you think the government should continue doing that, okay, but what you're explicitly advocating is that the government should not be held to the mandates of the law. Don't try to pretty it up and pretend it's legal or the AUMF or anything else legalizes extrajudicial killings.

A great irony of all this is that it was recently revealed that, in Afghanistan, the U.S. had compiled a "hit list" of Afghan citizens it suspects of being drug traffickers or somehow associated with the Taliban, in order to target them for assassination. When that hit list was revealed, Afghan officials "fiercely" objected on the ground that it violates due process and undermines the rule of law to murder people without trials:

Gen. Mohammad Daud Daud, Afghanistan's deputy interior minister for counternarcotics efforts, praised U.S. and British special forces for their help recently in destroying drug labs and stashes of opium. But he said he worried that foreign troops would now act on their own to kill suspected drug lords, based on secret evidence, instead of handing them over for trial.

"They should respect our law, our constitution and our legal codes," Daud said. "We have a commitment to arrest these people on our own" . . . .

Ali Ahmad Jalali, a former Afghan interior minister, said that he had long urged the Pentagon and its NATO allies to crack down on drug smugglers and suppliers, and that he was glad that the military alliance had finally agreed to provide operational support for Afghan counternarcotics agents. But he said foreign troops needed to avoid the temptation to hunt down and kill traffickers on their own.

"There is a constitutional problem here. A person is innocent unless proven guilty," he said. "If you go off to kill or capture them, how do you prove that they are really guilty in terms of legal process?" . . .

So we're in Afghanistan to teach them about democracy, the rule of law, and basic precepts of Western justice. Meanwhile, Afghan officials vehemently object to the lawless, due-process-free assassination "hit list" of their citizens based on the unchecked say-so of the U.S. Government, and have to lecture us on the rule of law and Constitutional constraints. By stark contrast, our own Government, our media and our citizenry appear to find nothing wrong whatsoever with lawless assassinations aimed at our own citizens.

 

[8537]

I also did not say that a military tribunal HAS to be secret. But it sure as hell CAN be.

Well, for your pathetic little strawman to work it would have to be secret.

But, stupid, I didn't offer any strawman, pathetic or otherwise.

When we are at war with the likes of al qaeda, you ignorant nitwit, the need for military and intelligence SECRECY is pretty ******* obvious. Even a complete pinhead like you ought to be able to grasp the glaringly obvious.

But, considering that it's you, perhaps not.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."

It's clear which side you favor.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Now, the President doesn't unilaterally put people on these hit lists, either. The information gets vetted. Much of it in cases involving rat shit like al qaeda would necessarily come from the military brass. How this is substantively different from a military tribunal not readily apparent.

And who gets the final say on the list?

The President.

That means this is a power that is keep exclusively in the Executive Branch. All checks on this power are after the fact, i.e., not of much use to the dead guy.

That is why it is 100% correct to say:

The day the President of the United States believes I am waging war against the United States of America and targeting any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I just think it's so sad that this current Administration declares that they will never engage in Cyber-Attacks against Iran while at the same time pushing for more easily obtained Internet Wire-Taps here in this country. What a sad state of affairs. The American People have to fear their own U.S. Government more than the Iranians do. Is it just me or does anyone else notice this madness?

 

[Madeline]

I just think it's so sad that this current Administration declares that they will never engage in Cyber-Attacks against Iran while at the same time pushing for more easily obtained Internet Wire-Taps here in this country. What a sad state of affairs. The American People have to fear their own U.S. Government more than the Iranians do. Is it just me or does anyone else notice this madness?

You're an idijit, LibocalypseNow. You'd have the CIA and FBI ignore Skype, etc. because Obama suggested these new means of communication must be subject to intercept when legal grounds for doing so is present?

You are the very picture of partisan hackery: cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[Madeline]

There's a need for extra-judicial assasinations because life is not a Disney movie. I see no reason to keep them secret after the danger has passed and I don't think they're illegal.

I'm not arguing life is like a Disney movie. How is my contention that the rule of law is important and we can't vest one man with supreme authority to have people assassinated based on his order alone any more Utopian or less realistic than your contention that the rule of law doesn't always apply and we can trust one man with that power.

How on Earth would evidence against Awlaki being reviewed by a federal judge put us in greater danger? It wouldn't. The only reason to make the "evidence" against Awlaki a secret is to avoid accountability, avoid having to answer to anyone or enter into a process where if the evidence isn't sufficient someone else has the authority to say "No, you can't do that."

You're the one trying to turn life into a Disney movie.

"Sentence first, verdict afterward! Off with his head!"

By the way, extrajudicial, by definition, means illegal. An "extrajudicial killing" is an "illegal killing" that its sole definition, all it means. Saying you don't think extrajudicial killings are illegal is like saying you don't think crime is criminal. It's a pure contradiction in terms.

Just heard today that this Administration is now also pushing for more easily obtained Internet Wire-Taps. I don't see any "Hope" or "Change" with this Administration. Just more simple mantras for simple minds.

By all means, let's limit our survelliance to landlines. Because we know, no terrorists are using Skype or anything.

Jesus you sound like a horse's ass on this thread, LibocalypseNow. You have a thought in your pea-brain other than "I hate Obama"?

For those insisting that the Government must have the technological ability to eavesdrop on any and all communications in order to stop Terrorists and criminals, what are you going to do about in-person communications? By this logic, the Government should install eavesdropping devices in all private homes and public spaces, provided they promise only to listen in when the law allows them to do so (I believe there was a [ame="http://www.amazon.com/1984-Signet-Classics-George-Orwell/dp/0451524934"]book[/ame] written about that once). For those insisting that the Government must have the physical ability to spy on all communications, what objections could one have to such a proposal? We've developed this child-like belief that all Bad Things can be prevented -- we can be Kept Safe from all dangers -- provided we just vest enough power in the Government to protect us all.

I'm assuming you must have supported Bush's warrantless surveillance program Madeline. Now that you apparently support giving the government unfettered access to all internet communication, I have to say, you know terrorists aren't meaning in person or anything. Skype and e-mail and text message and phone calls are only going to get a portion of terrorist communication. If we want to stop them and protect ourselves, we'll have to bug every home, office, private, and public space, right? Why not? Terrorists will use that too, the government has to have access to what they say or we're doomed.

Do you have a thought in your head other than "The leader is good, the leader is great, I surrender my will as of this date"?

Quentin, I am not an Obamaphile, and face to face communication is not a new technological breakthrough requiring new legal means to monitor it. The proposal does not seek "unfettered access" to internet communication -- it seeks such changes as requiring that companies maintain offices in the US and respond to legally-issued subpoenas.

Nice image of the Red Queen, BTW.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I just think it's so sad that this current Administration declares that they will never engage in Cyber-Attacks against Iran while at the same time pushing for more easily obtained Internet Wire-Taps here in this country. What a sad state of affairs. The American People have to fear their own U.S. Government more than the Iranians do. Is it just me or does anyone else notice this madness?

You're an idijit, LibocalypseNow. You'd have the CIA and FBI ignore Skype, etc. because Obama suggested these new means of communication must be subject to intercept when legal grounds for doing so is present?

You are the very picture of partisan hackery: cutting off your nose to spite your face.

More & more people now fear their own U.S. Government. That's exactly the opposite of what our Founding Fathers wanted. Why not just give the country back to the British? Don't be an ignorant Goose Stepper all your life.

 

[JBeukema]

You are wrong on a variety of levels. First off, if a person is born in the US, the US recognizes his US citizenship.

I already mentioned minors, dipshit.

Well, then, asshole, you should have included that "little" caveat in your referenced post.

I did, moron. You even quoted it. Twice.

You really are too ******* stupid to breathe.

Oh, the irony...

 

[LibocalypseNow]

They could actually strip his Citizenship. I'm not completely sure how much that would help though. I tend to think it would though.

 

[JBeukema]

The day I wage war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.

Correction: The day the President of the United States believes I am waging war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.

Correction to your erroneous "correction [sic]":

The day I wage war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.

Correction: The day the executive branch discovers that you don't support the president and that declaring you a 'terrorist' or an 'enemy combatant' makes you easier to get rid of...


Not that any such thing has ever occurred in history or anything

 

[JBeukema]

The president of course. That is why we elect him. TO MAKE DECISIONS.

We elect him to follow the processes laid out in the constitution for making decisions.

So you don't mind handing the president the exclusive authority to call for the head of a US citizen?

You don't see how that authority might be extra-constitutional and easily abused? Lest we forget, the president may one day chose to target someone you like instead of someone you hate.

Yes I would mind him calling for the head of a Citizen. We are not talking about Citizens here.

"'State Secrets' Cited By White House To Block Targeted Killings Suit...'

 

[shintao]

If the International game of war was played fairly, assassination would be an option.