Dem senator to CIA nominee: Should you give American citizens a chance to surrender before you kill them?

posted at 8:31 pm on February 7, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, I wonder if Wyden knows that the U.S. did, kinda sorta, give Awlaki a chance to surrender. Remember?

About six months before alleged Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader Anwar Al-Awlaki was killed in a drone strike in Yemen last year, the U.S. moved to notify him that his American passport had been revoked, according to newly-released State Department documents.

Surprisingly, U.S. State Department officials appear to have instructed the U.S. Embassy in Yemen to invite the suspected terrorist to come to the embassy to receive “an important letter regarding [his] U.S. passport.”…

It’s unclear from the documents whether the embassy ever actually sought to contact Anwar Al-Awlaki or succeeded in doing so. It’s possible that the attempt to reach out to Al-Awlaki was part of an internal effort by the Obama Administration to provide a form of due process to U.S. citizens targeted for the use of deadly force.

Brennan rambles in response but his point is clear enough: If you join Al Qaeda after 9/11, how do you not know that the U.S. is eager for your surrender? Was it somehow ambiguous in Awlaki’s mind that the White House wanted him off the battlefield? Wyden’s imagining a scenario, I think, where an American is plotting overseas against America and doesn’t realize that the United States government is aware of it. You can imagine that happening with a new, unknown terrorist group, where giving the mastermind a heads up that he’s on the radar might (but probably won’t) encourage him to quit. You can’t imagine it happening with AQ, which of course is why Brennan is so eager to address the specific case of AQ and only AQ. Once you get into hypotheticals involving as-yet undeclared enemies of the U.S., the ground he’s standing on gets much shakier.

The AP has a nice summary of his testimony today, none of which is likely to derail his confirmation. Although this part, where he played dumb about enhanced interrogation, was cute:

On the question of waterboarding, Brennan said that while serving as a deputy manager at the CIA during the Bush administration, he was told such interrogation methods produced “valuable information.” Now, after reading a 300-page summary of a 6,000-page report on CIA interrogation and detention policies, he said he does “not know what the truth is.”

Fred Kaplan’s reply: “The fact that Brennan has been President Obama’s senior adviser on counterterrorism these past four years, and yet found material in the Senate report that he had not known before, material that makes him now think he might have been wrong—this in itself is rather disturbing.” Well, no, not unless you think Brennan was telling the truth when he said he was newly ambivalent about EITs. If you assume that he’s patronizing Democrats by telling them what they wanted to hear, it’s perfectly sensible. Another fun moment: Brennan is eager to move command and control over drone strikes from the CIA to the Pentagon since blowing up terrorists is really more of a military job. Which means the man in charge of preventing terror attacks by liquidating the people who are planning them will soon be … this guy.

Now, go read Ace’s post about assassination power and outlaws, which is what we’re really talking about when we talk about summary execution of malfeasors. I agree that there needs to be some sort of check on the president in exercising this power; I’m just not sure that it should be Congress, which was so squeamish about having to take a vote on intervening in Libya that they all but endorsed Obama’s flouting of the War Powers Act. Politicians will almost always err on the side of authorizing a drone strike because the political consequences of attacking and screwing up by killing innocent foreigners are less severe than the consequences of not attacking and then having to explain yourself if/when the would-be target launches an attack that kills innocent Americans. That’s a brutal calculus, but that’s how it is. (Waiting for Congress to formally declare war on an individual would also give that individual time to go to ground, although if you insist a la Wyden on a formal demand for surrender, then you’re going to run into that problem anyway.) If you let a judge do this instead, then you’ve got someone who’s insulated from political pressure deciding on whether the “kill warrant” has merit or not. That’s not ideal either — more insulation means less accountability to voters, which is a scary prospect when we’re talking about targeting U.S. citizens — but I’ll bet Congress would rather have it that way than arrogate this review power to itself. We’ll see.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Soon…
We all will have to carry white flags.

Electrongod on February 7, 2013 at 8:44 PM

It’s funny how in the months leading to the ’12 election all the talk was about how Al-Qaeda had been almost destroyed by the efforts of Obama. Well, that’s old and busted.

Now, since Americans attentions spans are so short and they are back to fawning over Honey boo boo kardashian they can resurrect the once destroyed boogeyman and use him again just a few months later as a necessary evil and a pretext for even more power grabs.

levi on February 7, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Their citizenship is largely irrelevant to the question. If anyone takes up arms in a war/conflict with the United States then they are a legitimate target, citizen or otherwise. If Americans serving in Hitler’s armies met US forces on the battlefield they were not given any special consideration. In fact they were more likely to be subject to harsh penalties, such as a trial for treason.

Americans were forced to serve aboard British warships in 1812, this was well known, and that didn’t stop US warships from firing on them. Those were citizens forced to serve against their own wishes.

It’s a military matter, not law enforcement.

sharrukin on February 7, 2013 at 8:46 PM

We all will have to carry white flags.

Electrongod on February 7, 2013 at 8:44 PM

My ass is pretty pale.

Axe on February 7, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Wyden’s imagining a scenario, I think, where an American is plotting overseas against America and doesn’t realize that the United States government is aware of it.

Maybe this has more to do with Americans who are targeted by mistake and which do not meet the criteria yet are targeted anyways… sorta like all those five year olds and grandmothers who were placed on no-fly lists and strip-searched even when it would be obvious to most (excluding TSA of course) that there’s been a mistake somewhere up the chain.

Ukiah on February 7, 2013 at 8:53 PM

How do you surrender to a Predator?

Steven Den Beste on February 7, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Yeah, let’s get a judge who was appointed by Obama to decide who gets hit by the drones. Great idea.

God help us.

Curtiss on February 7, 2013 at 8:55 PM

These are political matters, not judicial. The courts have no role here. They don’t have any expertise in this area, amd are not accountable to the people. But congress does and is. There should be a group of congressmen, from both houses and both parties, all with top secret security clearance, who must sign-off on any American citizen who is knowingly put on the list. Obviously this would not apply to “hot” engagement where the target is actively engaged in hostile acts.

But congress is a bunch of cowards. They don’t want their fingerprints on this or any other “tough” decisions.

So Pres. Zero will continue to get away with the cold-blooded killing of US citizens with barely a peep from the libs. We can trust him, right? What a truly sad situation.

fastphil101 on February 7, 2013 at 8:56 PM

That is both funny and scary at the same time

jake-the-goose on February 7, 2013 at 8:56 PM

No waterboarding” but droning is ok.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 8:57 PM

Their citizenship is largely irrelevant to the question. If anyone takes up arms in a war/conflict with the United States then they are a legitimate target, citizen or otherwise. If Americans serving in Hitler’s armies met US forces on the battlefield they were not given any special consideration. In fact they were more likely to be subject to harsh penalties, such as a trial for treason.

Americans were forced to serve aboard British warships in 1812, this was well known, and that didn’t stop US warships from firing on them. Those were citizens forced to serve against their own wishes.

It’s a military matter, not law enforcement.

sharrukin on February 7, 2013 at 8:46 PM

++

It’s not the policy that offends me its the hypocrisy.

heretic on February 7, 2013 at 8:58 PM

This is just a step to being able to kill any American any where that the Emperor thinks is a bother.

JellyToast on February 7, 2013 at 8:59 PM

How do you surrender to a Predator?

Steven Den Beste on February 7, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Wear an Obama Tee Shirt may be a good start.

Electrongod on February 7, 2013 at 8:59 PM

So I’m thinking that a Surface-to-Air Missile really isn’t too much fire power for citizen use. It’s not even semi-automatic.

Curtiss on February 7, 2013 at 9:00 PM

I’m good with killing any member of al queida, On a traditional battlefield it seems to me an enemy has traditionally had an opportunity to surrender. If they chose not to, fair enough they are destroyed. Two wrinkles keep me contemplating this one. 1. Non traditional battlefield. 2. The assigned chooser. With this in mind, I have to say, I am not necessarily against killing by drone in defense of our Country while at war.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 9:01 PM

How do you surrender to a Predator?

Steven Den Beste on February 7, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Surrender to UAV, Illustrated.

unclesmrgol on February 7, 2013 at 9:04 PM

“No waterboarding” but droning is ok.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 8:57 PM

See and there is part of the rub for me. I’m cool with waterboarding. Its 0 and his ilk that aren’t. Even though I think most of agree 0 is a hypocrite and a liar in chief. I’m not sure that’s enough for me to rule against this concept. Yet.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 9:04 PM

What a truly sad situation.

fastphil101 on February 7, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Sad ony?

This is illegal, unconstitutional, thuggish, tyrannical.

Today the terrorists, tomorrow the tea party, the day after all of you.

Leftists are always for tyranny when their ox is in charge.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 9:04 PM

It’s not the policy that offends me its the hypocrisy.

heretic on February 7, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Yeah, that’s kinda where I’m coming down on this one too.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Under Bush leftists were for US constitutional rights for the rug muffins.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 9:06 PM

It’s not the policy that offends me its the hypocrisy.

heretic on February 7, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Agreed, and I would add a deep distrust of the guys giving the orders. Obama and the Democrats are not a group I trust in any capacity, certainly not with the power to kill. It would be nice to pass a law that says if a Democrat is in charge certain rules are changed, but I don’t think that would pass constitutional muster.

sharrukin on February 7, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Surrender to UAV, Illustrated.

unclesmrgol on February 7, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Good point.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 9:09 PM

sharrukin on February 7, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Sounds as if you and I may be on a similar line of reasoning on this.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM

Don’t worry, we get it. This is politics, ergo the goal is to acquire and exercise colossal power, at least for the pros at the top of the Democratic food chain. Still, the evidence piles up daily that what Barack Obama is producing with his countrywide “investments” is a blob, a morass, a mess. In the 2012 presidential election, nearly 66 million people voted for Barack Obama. We’re waiting for one Democrat in Congress to express doubt in the president’s pixie dust.

Mr. Henninger doesn’t even mention the drone non law.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 9:12 PM

May all the hypocrites spontaneously combust.

Note how the elitist trolls have been absent for days. They can’t defend the indefensible.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Just lift up your hands and sing: I surrender, drone. I surrender, drone. It’ll probably wink at ya, and give ya a get out of jail pass. ;-)

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Sounds as if you and I may be on a similar line of reasoning on this.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM

I think so. I also think the secret courts should be held to an absolute minimum and in Awlaki’s case I don’t see any need. As AllahPundit pointed out, he knew the US was after him so having a court give the red light in public would do no harm, even though I don’t think a court’s approval was needed in that particular case.

sharrukin on February 7, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Bills of attainder are prohibited by the Constitution. This is just another effort to chip away at the Constitution. Allowing one man to decide in secret who lives and who dies is evil. If this stands, it’s all down hill from here.

Curtiss on February 7, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Oh, look! A Dem Senator is posturing and pretending he actually gives a crap. I’ll believe it he votes NO. He won’t.

farsighted on February 7, 2013 at 9:16 PM

I’m reminded of that fmr Army veteran turned attorney, Kendall something or other, who was flagged in the Madrid bombings, he would have been long dead, before the found out he wasn’t responsible,

narciso on February 7, 2013 at 9:17 PM

if you “don’t know what the truth is”
and you want the job I say no.

Now, after reading a 300-page summary of a 6,000-page report on CIA interrogation and detention policies, he said he does “not know what the truth is.”

I rest my case.
Senator Sessions, my e-mail is in your cue, followed up with a phone call tomorrow.

seesalrun2 on February 7, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Dead men tell no tales.

tom0508 on February 7, 2013 at 9:21 PM

Sins of the Father: How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American

[Abdulrahman al-Awlaki] was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was also born in America, who was also an American citizen, and who was killed by drone two weeks before his son was, along with another American citizen named Samir Khan. Of course, both Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were, at the very least, traitors to their country — they had both gone to Yemen and taken up with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and al-Awlaki had proven himself an expert inciter of those with murderous designs against America and Americans: the rare man of words who could be said to have a body count. When he was killed, on September 30, 2011, President Obama made a speech about it; a few months later, when the Obama administraton’s public-relations campaign about its embrace of what has come to be called “targeted killing” reached its climax in a front-page story in the New York Times that presented the President of the United States as the last word in deciding who lives and who dies, he was quoted as saying that the decision to put Anwar al-Awlaki on the kill list — and then to kill him — was “an easy one.”

But Abdulrahman al-Awlaki wasn’t on an American kill list.

Nor was he a member of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninusla.

Nor was he “an inspiration,” as his father styled himself, for those determined to draw American blood.

Nor had he gone “operational,” as American authorities said his father had, in drawing up plots against Americans and American interests.

He was a boy who hadn’t seen his father in two years, since his father had gone into hiding.

He was a boy, who knew his father was on an American kill list and who snuck out of his family’s home in the early morning hours of 4 September 2011, to try to find him.

He was a boy who was still searching for his father when his father was killed, and who, on the night he himself was killed, was saying goodbye to the second cousin with whom he’d lived while on his search, and the friends he’d made.

He was a boy among boys, then; a boy among boys eating dinner by an open fire along the side of a road when an American drone came out of the sky and fired the missiles that killed them all.

How does Team Obama justify killing him?

The answer Robert Gibbs gave is chilling:

ADAMSON: …It’s an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he’s underage. He’s a minor.

GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.

Again, note that this kid wasn’t killed in the same drone strike as his father. He was hit by a drone strike elsewhere, and by the time he was killed, his father had already been dead for two weeks. Gibbs nevertheless defends the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists.

Killing an American citizen without due process on that logic ought to be grounds for impeachment. Is that the real answer? Or would the Obama Administration like to clarify its reasoning? Any Congress that respected its oversight responsibilities would get to the bottom of this.

Keep in mind, too, that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the United States to execute a minor or a defendant sentenced for a crime committed as a minor. See: United States, Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

Furthermore, in May 2012, the New York Times, inadvertently, told us that President Barack Obama, PERSONALLY, ordered the execution of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki:

This was the enemy, served up in the latest chart from the intelligence agencies: 15 Qaeda suspects in Yemen with Western ties. The mug shots and brief biographies resembled a high school yearbook layout. Several were Americans. Two were teenagers, including a girl who looked even younger than her 17 years…

…Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.

Seven months before the NYT’s article, President Obama murdered a 16 year-old boy that was NOT a “top official” in al-Qaeda; was NOT a member of the group, was NOT an “inspiration,” had NOT gone “operational,” and had NOT been accused of any crimes whatsoever.

He was a 16 year-old boy from Denver, who had left to find his father, Anwar al-Awlaki, a leader in AQ. He was not “collateral damage.” He was the TARGET. There was NO evidence of any crime committed – or even allegations of same – by Abdulrahman. He was denied due process. His death was premeditated and ordered by the President of the United States, a country where executing minors for FIRST-DEGREE MURDER or individuals, who committed first-degree murder as a minor, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

He wasn’t waterboarded. He was droned… in a country with which the United States is not at war.

He was sentenced to death because of the sins of his father.

Resist We Much on February 7, 2013 at 9:26 PM

Bills of attainder are prohibited by the Constitution.

Curtiss on February 7, 2013 at 9:16 PM

That wasn’t a Bill Of Attainder, that was a Hellfire missile.

sharrukin on February 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM

Soon…
We all will have to carry white flags.

Electrongod on February 7, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Not Barky, he’ll be carrying a black one.

Bishop on February 7, 2013 at 9:28 PM

Dem senator to CIA nominee: Should you give American citizens a chance to surrender before you kill them?

…is that a tribal question?

KOOLAID2 on February 7, 2013 at 9:32 PM

No, he was ‘collateral damage’ they were trying to get an AQ figure, Ibrahim Al Banna, active in Yemen, they didn’t.

narciso on February 7, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Big Brother doesn’t care about your “rights” from some old dusty document that is no longer relevent!

SouthernGent on February 7, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki

He was a 16 year-old boy from Denver, who had left to find his father, Anwar al-Awlaki, a leader in AQ.

What was he doing in that convoy of Al Qaeda operatives?

He couldn’t afford a phone? A letter perhaps?

He was denied due process. His death was premeditated and ordered by the President of the United States, a country where executing minors for FIRST-DEGREE MURDER or individuals, who committed first-degree murder as a minor, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

He wasn’t waterboarded. He was droned… in a country with which the United States is not at war.

He was sentenced to death because of the sins of his father.

Resist We Much on February 7, 2013 at 9:26 PM

What about German and Japanese children? They aren’t citizens, so can they be freely targeted according to police procedures?

I ask because of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Hamburg, and many, many other attacks. I don’t have any information on the criminal tendencies of German children, but I would guess most of them were also free of most crimes with perhaps cookie stealing being the exception.

There is no due process in war.

sharrukin on February 7, 2013 at 9:58 PM

Abdulrahman…
He was sentenced to death because of the sins of his father.

Resist We Much on February 7, 2013 at 9:26 PM

He was not in Yemen as a tourist looking for his father. He was looking to follow his father. If he stayed in Denver he would be alive.

tjexcite on February 7, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Why does the Senator keep talking about the targeting of Americans? Anwar al-Awlaki was not an American. A citizen, perhaps, but not an American.

“The name American…must always exalt the just pride of patriotism…You have in common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.”

When President Washington delivered his Farewell Address, he was addressing Americans, those who supported and fought the American Revolution.

Being born in the US may make you a citizen, but the name American is a loftier title attached to one’s steadfast support for our Founding Principles, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those who leave the United States and support the likes of al-Qaeda are not American, they are enemies at war with the United States.

Tripwhipper on February 7, 2013 at 10:08 PM

He was not in Yemen as a tourist looking for his father. He was looking to follow his father. If he stayed in Denver he would be alive.

tjexcite on February 7, 2013 at 10:05 PM

True; I mean, we’ve declared war against Yemen, so he should have known better.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 7, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Now, I know that some of these drones that are flying around and have weapons on them must be pretty big or of some fair size. But, what about the drones that are just flying around and spying on me/you. Can my .270 take it out?

Mirimichi on February 7, 2013 at 10:40 PM

True; I mean, we’ve declared war against Yemen, so he should have known better.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 7, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Yemen and the US are at war with Al Qaeda which is who he decided to hang out with.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/15/us-yemen-idUSTRE79E0R320111015

The death of Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian described by Yemeni officials as high on their wanted list,

So going to a violent, war torn region in search of your Al Qaeda daddy and hanging out with one of the most wanted men in that country is probably not the way to stay alive.

sharrukin on February 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM

You have the right to remain silent..KaBoom…permanently.

bluesdoc70 on February 7, 2013 at 10:52 PM

If our intelligence services know that US citizen X is in hostile enemy territory fighting with or supporting the enemy I see no problem, legal or moral, in taking the traitor out with little fuss, say, on even just Obama’s order based on said intelligence. What are people worried about? That some innocent citizen just happens to be in, say, North Africa or Yemen sight seeing among known Islamic terrorists and is mistaken for a bad guy? Come on.

Chessplayer on February 7, 2013 at 11:08 PM

What was he doing in that convoy of Al Qaeda operatives? He couldn’t afford a phone? A letter perhaps?

sharrukin on February 7, 2013 at 9:58 PM

That story has changed frequently. He was eating outside of a restaurant and saying goodbye to his cousin, with whom he first stayed after arriving in Yemen.

The administration’s first position was that he was “collateral damage.”

Then, it claimed that he was a “military-age male,” who could be targeted under international law (untrue because he was only 16, not 18, as required).

Next, they tried to claim that the real target of the strike was Ibrahim al-Banna was the actual target. They claimed that al-Banna died in the strike along with 23 other people. The problem is that al-Banna was never there and is alive and well. Further, 23 didn’t die.

Next, the Obama campaign tried to blame his death on his father, who was droned to death 2 weeks earlier.

Finally, since the claim that al-Banna had been the target and was killed blew up, the administration has simply stated that they have NO OFFICIAL RECORD of the death of Abdulrahman.

What about German and Japanese children?

What about them?

They aren’t citizens, so can they be freely targeted according to police procedures?

What “police procedures”? If German or Japanese children are killed in a bombing of Dresden or Tokyo, it is perfectly legal.

I ask because of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Hamburg, and many, many other attacks. I don’t have any information on the criminal tendencies of German children, but I would guess most of them were also free of most crimes with perhaps cookie stealing being the exception.

You must have a reading comprehension problem. American citizens have constitutional rights. Japanese and German children do NOT have constitutional rights as long as they are not on American soil.

There is no due process in war.

Um, WRONG.

See: Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004)(even non-citizens are entitled to minimum due process) and Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (foreign national enemy combatants have constitutional rights to challenge their detention) to name a few. Even in the case of Jose Padilla, the Court held that The Military Commissions Act of 2006 did not apply by its terms because he is an American).

To say that Americans aren’t entitled to due process during wartime is to be completely uninformed on the law. To compare American citizens to foreign nationals that are not on American soil (where constitutional rights attach) is to be completely at odds with American jurisprudence.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 1:47 AM

Come on. Even the flying monkeys gave Dorothy an opportunity to surrender . . .

BigAlSouth on February 8, 2013 at 9:27 AM

How do you surrender to a drone, Senator?

paulus1 on February 8, 2013 at 9:58 AM

To say that Hillary had no legacy at State is wrong: she freely articulated the right of the US to practice political assassination as a normal part of it’s foreign policy (“we came, we saw, he died”).

And the president has all but admitted that he signs international death warrants every night before his milk and cookies.

Congress was not consulted about any of this.

BTW, I would have thought every country in the world would oppose the right of another to launch missile attacks in their territory, for any reason.

Covert ops are covert ops so there are other standards and scope, but this is headline news and the frank brutality of this administration, wielded apparently in the name of US citizens, disposes of any moral authority we might pretend to.

While the left wailed over underwear humiliation at Abu Graib, everything is peachy with our indolent lawmakers aboutlaunching missiles in the territory of other nations to kill enemies of the state and any other unfortunates who happen to be nearby.

Presumably it is now OK for the UK to run bombing missions in New York in pursuit of IRA terrorists?

Is there nobody home in this administration? Is there an adult we can talk to?

virgo on February 8, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Now, go read Ace’s post about assassination power and outlaws, which is what we’re really talking about when we talk about summary execution of malfeasors. I agree that there needs to be some sort of check on the president in exercising this power; I’m just not sure that it should be Congress, which was so squeamish about having to take a vote on intervening in Libya that they all but endorsed Obama’s flouting of the War Powers Act.

You want a solution that will make everyone happy ? Ok, I can’t do that, but I can come close to squaring the circle.

2004 SCOTUS Case Hamdi V Rumsfeld. Required due process for battlefield capture of a US Citizen fighting for Al Qaeda.

Combatant Status Review Tribunals were implemented, this is how we reviewed the Gitmo detainees.

Similar in many (but not all) ways to a military tribunal; no open court, but a formal review of evidence with oversight from officials regarding the situation.

Require this for non-battlefield assassinations of targets to verify/justify their target status.

Any reason from the “kill them without oversight” crowd on why this would be unworkable?

gekkobear on February 8, 2013 at 3:22 PM