Quotes of the day

posted at 10:31 pm on February 7, 2013 by Allahpundit

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Thursday that the Obama administration will not be releasing any more information about the controversial use of drones to kill American citizens.

Carney’s remarks, via the White House’s transcript of the off-camera press gaggle:

“This is not an open-ended process. This is a specific and unique accommodation in this circumstance. The fact is, when it comes to public disclosure, we have been — not with the kind of attention that’s been given it this week — but we have been publicly discussing these matters at the highest levels of government for the very reason that I’ve given, which is the President understands that these are core issues about how we conduct ourselves in war, how the President of the United States — any President — balances his constitutional obligation to protect America and American citizens, and his obligation to do so in a manner that is lawful under the Constitution and reflects our values.”

***

President Obama’s white paper justification for carrying out drone strikes against U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism could “swallow the rule” guaranteeing the due process rights of Americans, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, suggested today…

“You would think that consistent with the principles of due process, the government shouldn’t be able to kill one of its own citizens without some kind of showing that they present an imminent threat,” he continued. “But when you dig a little bit deeper into this white paper . . . they have sort of a loose [definition] of ‘imminent’.”…

The former appellate lawyer also criticized the White House for failing to identify a constitutional principle that would prevent the U.S. military from carrying out a drone strike on a suspected American terrorist in the United States.

***

It may be true that, even when it comes to the first two conditions, the “informed, high-level officials” in the Obama administration—including Brennan, who has been deeply involved in these decisions—have exercised good judgment. But we don’t know this; we have no way of knowing this. And by “we,” I mean not just those of who of us who don’t have the proper security clearances, but also those who do (outside, of course, the very small group that makes the decisions of life or death).

And that’s the point. The white paper acknowledges that there is no entity—in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch—that has the authority to oversee these sorts of decisions. But maybe there should be. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who co-chairs the Intelligence Committee, suggested at Thursday’s hearing that an analog to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might be created to sign off on these orders, especially if American citizens are the targets. Not a bad idea.

But the logic of the three conditions—or at least the two conditions that aren’t at all restrictive—raises questions not just of legality but of policy. Gen. David Petraeus once said of the Iraq war, “Tell me how this ends.” The same question can be asked of this war. Are there no limits to targeted assassination? Are we going to be doing this as long as terrorist organizations exist? What is the effect? Does it really reduce terrorism and pummel the organization—or are the killed leaders simply replaced by underlings waiting in the wings?

***

Further, in addition to checks and balances, there has to be more transparency. The notion that the government can compile a list of citizens for killing, not tell anyone who’s on it or how they got there, is simply un–American. Surely, a modern version of a WANTED: DEAD OR ALIVE notice could be publicly circulated, with a listing of the particulars. Maybe the named individual would turn himself in rather than wait for the drones to find him. Or maybe he’d hire an attorney to present evidence he’s not actually an imminent threat to American citizens.

For centuries, civilized societies have understood that even wars must be fought according to rules, which have developed over time in response to changing realities. Rules are even more important in endless, murky wars such as the fight against Islamist terror groups. Currently, we’re letting whomever is in the Oval Office pick and choose from among the existing rules, applying and redefining them based on his own judgment and that of his advisors. We can do better.

***

During the hearing, Feinstein forcefully insisted that the CIA’s drone strikes kill only “single digits” of civilians annually, and even ran through a list of accusations against Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. citizen and al-Qaida propagandist the U.S. killed in Yemen in 2011, to underscore her belief in the legitimacy of the killing. She suggested that media reports and nongovernmental organization studies claiming larger percentages of civilian deaths from the highly classified program are ignorant. Feinstein emphasized that the CIA has hosted committee staff over 30 times to conduct oversight over the drone program…

Yet Feinstein and several other senators during the hearing said the CIA materially misrepresented to Congress key facts about the quality of information it received from its post-9/11 torture and detentions program. That revelation came from the committee’s recently completed 6,000-page report into those programs. But since the report is still classified, senators couldn’t say outright that the CIA lied to them. Brennan said that the misstatements made by CIA about torture called into question the basis for his public statements years ago that torture extracted valuable information for counterterrorist operations. “I have to determine what the truth is,” Brennan said.

But if the CIA misled Congress about torture, how can the committee be confident it’s not misleading Congress about civilian deaths from drones?

***

Can we learn at least a little from the past? And not the distant past, either. Enough of the detainees at Gitmo were wrongly held so that you’d figure Obama (didn’t he pledge to shut that prison down?) would want to make double-plus sure that he’s targeting the right bastards?…

By making clear that as a journalist he tries to see things first and foremost from the perspective of the powerful, Michael Tomasky helps to clarify why so many in the media are rushing to the president’s defense. They are entranced with power and the view from the top. “Presidents live with that responsibility [of protecting American lives] every day,” he writes. “If that responsibility were mine, I can’t honestly say what I’d do, and I don’t think anyone can.” Not all journalists are awed by power, of course, even on the right (National Review’s Jim Geraghty, for instance, asserts that this sort of thing of extra-judicial killing policy wouldn’t be cricket even under a GOP president).

This isn’t ultimately about ideological hypocrisy – of liberals changing their tune once their guy is in office – but something much more basic and much more disturbing. It reveals that for all their crowing about being watchdogs of all that is good and decent in society, when push comes to shove, too many journalists are ready and willing handmaidens to power – including the power to kill.

***

The white paper has ignited not quite a firestorm (again, this isn’t the Bush administration), but at least a smoldering ember of brow-furrowed consternation among the president’s supporters and journalistic sympathizers who find the document “chilling.”

They rarely say what their alternative would be. Does a U.S. citizen get an exemption from targeting if he joins Al Qaeda at a high level? Should his status be litigated before he can be targeted, and if so, by whom and for how long and on the basis of what evidence? Can he show up in the court room to confront his accusers, a basic element of the Anglo-American system? Should al-Awlaki have gotten a court-appointed lawyer (assuming Gloria Allred wasn’t available) and access to all the intelligence about him so he could properly contest it? Maybe over Skype from somewhere in the badlands of Yemen?…

It’s not for nothing that the author of the white paper sounds like he could have worked for Dick Cheney. The Obama administration’s approach reflects the logic of the laws of war, the structure of American government and the exigencies of the fight against Al Qaeda.

***

By including terrorists among those afforded constitutional protections, the president’s policy risks stretching those protections a mile wide and an inch deep—weakening them for all Americans.

Then there’s the question of whether Mr. Obama’s approach really uses “our values as a compass.” After he took office, the president made a great show of ending enhanced interrogation, which CIA directors say produced much of the intelligence used to locate al Qaeda leaders including Osama bin Laden. The Bush administration had subjected about 100 al Qaeda detainees to some tough methods, including three to waterboarding.

Rather than capture terrorists—which produces the most valuable intelligence on al Qaeda—Mr. Obama has relied almost exclusively on drone attacks, and he has thereby been able to dodge difficult questions over detention. But those deaths from the sky violate personal liberty far more than the waterboarding of three al Qaeda leaders ever did.

***

Our president has the authority to quell insurrections by force. American-born terrorists engage in insurrection. Case closed.

Consider the late Anwar al-Awlaki. Lefties argue he didn’t pose a sufficient threat to merit killing. Really? Here’s a traitor who joined our most virulent enemies and used his knowledge of our country to encourage, plan and facilitate attacks. His guilt was greater than that of some poor sap who strapped on a suicide bomb — just as crime bosses bear a heavier guilt than their trigger-men.

And if a foreign power can’t or won’t control its own territory, we have a legal right to intervene under the accepted conventions of warfare…

This is not a difficult issue: When Americans turn violently against the United States, they lose the benefits of citizenship

[T]he drone program’s the only Obama-era policy that works.

***

“I want everybody that said what they said about George W. Bush…I want those people to apologize to George W. Bush.”

***


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

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

What evidence do you have that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was involved with terror and al-Qaeda, specifically?

None. So, not only was he killed AFTER his “terrorist father,” there was no evidence or even an allegation that he was involved in terrorism.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 1:03 AM

Evidence belongs in a courtroom, not in a war torn region like Yemen. Again, you are thinking this is a law enforcement concern and it isn’t.

There is very little that is just in war. People die for all sorts of reasons and this kid was looking to join his Al-Qaeda father. He wasn’t an innocent party. He wasn’t there looking to get his father to sign his yearbook.

So tell me… what he was doing there?

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 1:14 AM

Good Night All.

MarshFox on February 8, 2013 at 1:06 AM

Night Fox.

Axe on February 8, 2013 at 1:14 AM

They didn’t in Hiroshima when they were vaporized along with those Japanese citizens.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I have addressed this point several times already on this thread. They were not the target. Tokyo was.

AFTER capture and even non-citizens have protections then.

Let me get this straight. A President cannot deprive a foreign enemy combatant of his due process rights while in captivity, but he can deprive an American citizen, who is NOT an enemy combatant, without making a proffer of any kind to any court or legislative commission.

Is that what you are saying?

So, innocent until proven guilty is not even replaced with innocent until we proffer evidence before a court of competent jurisdiction that would meet the barest of burdens of proof before a grand jury, which will indict a ham sandwich.

Aren’t you from Russia (the Soviet Union-Russia)? I am quite surprised that you are willing to give a President this much latitude WITH ABSOLUTELY NO OVERSIGHT WHATSOEVER.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 1:18 AM

Let me get this straight. A President cannot deprive a foreign enemy combatant of his due process rights while in captivity, but he can deprive an American citizen, who is NOT an enemy combatant, without making a proffer of any kind to any court or legislative commission.

In captivity or not?

He cannot do so if the enemy combatant is in custody. This is due to the UCMJ, and the law. An enemy combatant with American citizenship is treated differently than one without citizenship after capture.

Outside of custody in a military conflict they are treated exactly the same.

So, innocent until proven guilty is not even replaced with innocent until we proffer evidence before a court of competent jurisdiction that would meet the barest of burdens of proof before a grand jury, which will indict a ham sandwich.

Innocent until proven guilty is replaced with a bomb run, a shot to the back of the head, or an artillery barrage.

All enemy combatant are treated the same regardless of passport status.

Aren’t you from Russia (the Soviet Union-Russia)? I am quite surprised that you are willing to give a President this much latitude WITH ABSOLUTELY NO OVERSIGHT WHATSOEVER.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 1:18 AM

I believe you have me confused with someone else.

There is supposed to be oversight from those trusty folks in Congress. Stop laughing, that’s the theory. That congress is abdicating its responsibilities is a major problem, but I don’t know how you get them to take their role seriously.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 1:30 AM

Evidence belongs in a courtroom, not in a war torn region like Yemen. Again, you are thinking this is a law enforcement concern and it isn’t.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 1:14 AM

Er, no. It is a constitutional issue.

There is very little that is just in war. People die for all sorts of reasons and this kid was looking to join his Al-Qaeda father.

Um, his father was dead. He had already met up with him.

He wasn’t an innocent party.

Assumes facts not in evidence. The burden of proof is on you to show why an American minor can be executed by his President on foreign soil when the execution of minors (or those that committed the crime for which they are sentenced when they were minors) is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. See United States, Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)..

He wasn’t there looking to get his father to sign his yearbook. So tell me… what he was doing there?

Visiting his father, who he knew may never see again. He left a note when he ran away from home.

But, don’t let that worry you. His father was a bad man…a dead, bad man. So, hey!, he might be “The Bad Seed” so, even though there is no evidence that he has committed any criminal acts or picked up arms against his country, we probably should err on the safe side and kill the kid.

By the way, do you have A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a “senior operational leader” of al-Qaeda or “an associated force” or ANY intelligence indicating that he was engaged in an active plot to attack the US, as the kill list memo requires?

I’ll wait…but not for long because I am getting ready to go to bed. If it takes you too long, just leave your evidence here and I’ll catch it in the morning.

IOW, I’ll see you another time on a different thread because there is no evidence for you to find.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 1:31 AM

I found myself in between
a quest for glory
an untold story
fleeting mists of orange and green

Off my path a glistening bay
a stranger said my name today
The answers to my questions lie,
not in this dream but in the sky

Now you might find me with this fellow
after each rain
in joy or pain
For just like me, his name is yellow.

Rusty Allen on February 8, 2013 at 1:34 AM

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 1:30 AM

Distilled: The US can’t kill Mahmoud Amadinejad because it is against Federal law to kill heads of state, but it can kill 16 year-old Americans that are not “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaeda or “an associated force” and where is NO intelligence indicating that they are engaged in an active plot to attack the US.

Got it.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 1:34 AM

He wasn’t in Yemen on holiday.
He was there to join his terrorist father… and join him he did.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 12:50 AM

.
Wow. Just wow.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 12:58 AM

.
This is where I’m willing to admit I’ve missed something.

What is the evidence that he (the 16 year old son) was joining his terrorist father, for the purpose of taking up arms against the U.S.?

It hasn’t been presented at any of the news outlets, I’ve heard from or read today.

listens2glenn on February 8, 2013 at 1:36 AM

What is the evidence that he (the 16 year old son) was joining his terrorist father, for the purpose of taking up arms against the U.S.?

It hasn’t been presented at any of the news outlets, I’ve heard from or read today.

listens2glenn on February 8, 2013 at 1:36 AM

There isn’t any.

The implication seems to be that he was taking up his father’s work. As for the evidence of that — there isn’t any.

Rusty Allen on February 8, 2013 at 1:34 AM

Wow. :)

Axe on February 8, 2013 at 1:38 AM

An American enemy combatant does have due process rights, which does not mean that he gets Mirandised on the battlefield. It does, however, mean that he may not be targeted and executed by an “informed high-level official” without charges or evidence.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 12:17 AM

Where do you get this from?

It comes from none other than the kill list memo.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 1:39 AM

This is where I’m willing to admit I’ve missed something.

What is the evidence that he (the 16 year old son) was joining his terrorist father, for the purpose of taking up arms against the U.S.?

It hasn’t been presented at any of the news outlets, I’ve heard from or read today.

listens2glenn on February 8, 2013 at 1:36 AM

There was NO evidence.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM

I need to learn to expand my structure in writing. When I write piano songs I have a few chord progressions that I stick with and it’s hard to depart. And with poetry, I don’t know the rules and when to venture from them.

Rusty Allen on February 8, 2013 at 1:44 AM

Assumes facts not in evidence.

That would sound impressive in a courtroom.

There aren’t any airstrikes in most courtrooms.

As to his innocence, you have to be willfully blind not to realize what he was doing there. He was there to join his father who was a terrorist and a traitor.

By the way, do you have A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a “senior operational leader” of al-Qaeda or “an associated force” or ANY intelligence indicating that he was engaged in an active plot to attack the US, as the kill list memo requires?

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 1:31 AM

None of that is required because this wasn’t a courtroom.

He was killed in a military strike and innocent bystanders may also have been killed. It doesn’t matter because it’s not a law enforcement operation. It’s military and they operate by an entirely different standard. Even if he was in the wrong place at the wrong time it doesn’t change anything.

An entire family of Americans getting killed who were really on vacation in Yemen doesn’t change that. That would be collateral damage and sad, but again, this isn’t a courtroom.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 1:45 AM

Distilled: The US can’t kill Mahmoud Amadinejad because it is against Federal law to kill heads of state, but it can kill 16 year-old Americans that are not “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaeda or “an associated force” and where is NO intelligence indicating that they are engaged in an active plot to attack the US.

Got it.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 1:34 AM

That’s about the size of it.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 1:47 AM

He wasn’t in Yemen on holiday.
He was there to join his terrorist father… and join him he did.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 12:50 AM
.

What is the evidence that he (the 16 year old son) was joining his terrorist father, for the purpose of taking up arms against the U.S.?

It hasn’t been presented at any of the news outlets, I’ve heard from or read today.

listens2glenn on February 8, 2013 at 1:36 AM

.
There isn’t any.

The implication seems to be that he was taking up his father’s work. As for the evidence of that — there isn’t any.

Axe on February 8, 2013 at 1:38 AM
.
There was NO evidence.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM

.
That’s how I saw it all day, today. But sharrukin sounds so convinced, I’m willing to hear evidence from that side.

listens2glenn on February 8, 2013 at 1:50 AM

Distilled: The US can’t kill Mahmoud Amadinejad because it is against Federal law to kill heads of state, but it can kill 16 year-old Americans that are not “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaeda or “an associated force” and where is NO intelligence indicating that they are engaged in an active plot to attack the US.

Got it.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 1:34 AM

That’s about the size of it.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 1:47 AM

It doesn’t even comply with the requirements under the Kill List Memo.

I sure hope that you are declared a terrorist by this or another administration. In your view, the government doesn’t need no steekin evidence of your guilt. Hell, it can even set you up like it did Randy Weaver. Just think, it would have been so much easier to declare the Randy and Vicki Weaver “terrorists” and hit them with a hell-fire missile. There 4 children and guest would have just been chalked up as “collateral damage.”

You are wrong about there not being any due process during wartime and you can go back to the Civil War, at least, to see where deprivation of due process and civil rights has been held to be unconstitutional.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 1:53 AM

As to his innocence, you have to be willfully blind not to realize what he was doing there. He was there to join his father who was a terrorist and a traitor.

He was killed in a military strike and innocent bystanders may also have been killed. It doesn’t matter because it’s not a law enforcement operation. It’s military and they operate by an entirely different standard. Even if he was in the wrong place at the wrong time it doesn’t change anything.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 1:45 AM

.
Who was the intended target? Is that information that must remain “classified?”

listens2glenn on February 8, 2013 at 1:56 AM

You are wrong about there not being any due process during wartime and you can go back to the Civil War, at least, to see where deprivation of due process and civil rights has been held to be unconstitutional.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 1:53 AM

There is no due process before capture, and you haven’t produced a shred of evidence to suggest there is.

I didn’t make the law restricting killing heads of state, and I didn’t make the law regarding enemy combatants.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 1:58 AM

Folks, I can’t stick around . . . . . catch you all tomorrow.

listens2glenn on February 8, 2013 at 1:59 AM

Who was the intended target? Is that information that must remain “classified?”

listens2glenn on February 8, 2013 at 1:56 AM

This is the problem with the entire argument that somehow knowing his name and citizenship status suddenly makes it a law enforcement issue. What if they targeted his boots? Or his cat? Or his vehicle? Or the guy next to him, but NOT him? Does that make it a legal kill?

Or does his very presence mean that no strike can take place because he’s an American citizen? That would allow any terror group to seed their formations with Americans as an invincible shield from American airstrikes.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 2:03 AM

And with poetry, I don’t know the rules and when to venture from them.

Rusty Allen on February 8, 2013 at 1:44 AM

No one does. :) It’s why I keep tossing things out. In the poem, the poem itself will tell you its structure. The first stanza will argue with the second and the third, when you get the words down, and then it’s just a matter of getting out a chisel and seeing which fits best. One problem with throwing structure away is that you never need the chisel, and you never have to grapple with it; free-form appeals to the bohemian bits, but — the poetry just isn’t as good. That statement is heresy, by the way. But it’s true.

Different structures lend to different things, just like in music:

Not one thing that you’ve said to me
Has made the slightest sense.
Please brush aside my awestruck stare,
My shocked fool’s recompense.

So strange to contemplate, that there
A sep’rate world grinds round.
And as it grinds, it grinds with noise,
A squeaky, grating sound.

/friend of mine

8 and 6, rhyming, and iambic:
not ONE thing THAT you’ve SAID to ME
has MADE the SLIGHT est SENSE

– it’s usually called a “ballad” meter. It’s shory, choppy; good for being a smart ass and good for a simple song. :) But it gets monotonous for long works . . . and it’s hard to take seriously, for serious subjects.

Peep Shakes, 10 and iambic, not rhyming:

A mote it is to trouble the mind’s eye.
In the most high and palmy state of Rome,
A little ere the mightiest Julius fell,
The graves stood tenantless and the sheeted dead
Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets:
As stars with trains of fire and dews of blood,
Disasters in the sun; and the moist star
Upon whose influence Neptune’s empire stands
Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse:
And even the like precurse of fierce events,
As harbingers preceding still the fates
And prologue to the omen coming on,
Have heaven and earth together demonstrated
Unto our climatures and countrymen.–
But soft, behold! lo, where it comes again!

– Hamlet

You throw the rules away when they keep you from finishing your poem properly. You’ll know. :) Note all the broken rules above, if you want to sift it.

As far as treading the same ground, the only way to open that up is by treading new ground. Reading. Trying. Same in music, same in all art. Always embarrassing and awkward, especially when you’ve gotten good at your existing ground.

/imho, etc., just talking

Axe on February 8, 2013 at 2:04 AM

That’s how I saw it all day, today. But sharrukin sounds so convinced, I’m willing to hear evidence from that side.

listens2glenn on February 8, 2013 at 1:50 AM

But that’s not Shar’s argument, L2G —

Folks, I can’t stick around . . . . . catch you all tomorrow.

listens2glenn on February 8, 2013 at 1:59 AM

Bah. Night L2G. :)

Axe on February 8, 2013 at 2:05 AM

I didn’t make the law restricting killing heads of state, and I didn’t make the law regarding enemy combatants.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 1:58 AM

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was NOT an enemy combatant.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 2:06 AM

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was NOT an enemy combatant.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 2:06 AM

Neither were those Japanese children, or the American POWs who were killed at Nagasaki.

And I am not at all convinced that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki wasn’t an enemy combatant. No one has given me any sane reason for this guy to be joining his terrorist father who was a self-declared traitor.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 2:12 AM

There is no due process before capture, and you haven’t produced a shred of evidence to suggest there is.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 1:58 AM

Here’s more: Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) (prohibiting deprivation of citizenship without due process even during time of war); United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967) (rejecting indiscriminate deprivation of constitutional rights despite government interest in national security). Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 696 (2001), (the Court – specifically – declined to rule that the deprivation of due process and civil liberties by either the Executive or Legislative branches during wartime and refused to give “heightened deference to the judgments of the political branches with respect to matters of national security” caused by “terrorism or other special circumstances.”

“We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens.”

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor writing for the majority in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)

I didn’t make the law restricting killing heads of state, and I didn’t make the law regarding enemy combatants.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 1:58 AM

He wasn’t an enemy combatant.

I’ll give you more caselaw tomorrow.

G’nite.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 2:25 AM

G’nite.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 2:25 AM

Night RWM. :)

Don’t have nightmares about ponies or unicorns or butterflies or anything.

Axe on February 8, 2013 at 2:26 AM

On topic: Eye in the Sky

Axe on February 8, 2013 at 2:39 AM

These a-holes were not on a battlefield and were not imminent threats. The 16 year old kid was not a leader of al-qaida.

He was in an Al-Qaida convoy and being 16 doesn’t change that.

What nonsense… Being that young goes a long way in not deserving to be executed especially if he was taken in by that group at an even younger age. Get some perspective, man.

At least try them in abstentia first.

Unconstitutional.

Doesn’t seem to be a problem for you in other areas… still more process than they got. If they had notice of such a hearing against them and still don’t show, then we can come to a stronger conclusion that they are waging war against us.

An American passport isn’t a magical defense against Hellfire missiles, or evading the consequences of taking up arms against the US.

No liberty is being given up because this is as old as the constitution.

This mythical, “they needed killin’ for national defense” is no where to be found in the only document that matters. Any implication of it in the commander in chief power does not trump the enumerated powers.

What you are suggesting is giving a huge advantage to terrorism by allowing them to seed their units with Americans preventing any military action against them.

What your suggesting is giving our scumbag politicians the power to deprive citizens of life without respecting the rule of law or God given rights. War on terror be damned; that is insane. Specifically targeting citizens in countries where our CIC has not been authorized to order military action; how many constitutional violations does a guy have to rack up before you big state national defense folks are fed up? I swear you guys are no better than big statist liberals. useless.

Chubbs65 on February 8, 2013 at 2:41 AM

So Axe has been ropin’ cattle on Brokeback Mountain? hahaha.

SparkPlug on February 8, 2013 at 1:03 AM

Shhh . . . class is in session. We’ll talk about your immediate thoughts of sex when you saw the cowboy picture later. I’m learning law.

Axe on February 8, 2013 at 1:08 AM

:) Pwned. But you owned yesterday.

Axe on February 8, 2013 at 2:41 AM

in countries where our CIC has not been authorized to order military action

Chubbs65 on February 8, 2013 at 2:41 AM

That’s something in particular that needs to be reigned in. The latitude the President has at the moment is as wide as the world, and that’s a complete inversion of congressional declaration authority. That pendulum seems to have swung as far as it can go in the opposite direction.

Axe on February 8, 2013 at 2:45 AM

*reined in. Every time.

Axe on February 8, 2013 at 2:50 AM

There is no due process before capture, and you haven’t produced a shred of evidence to suggest there is.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 1:58 AM

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 2:25 AM

Neither Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez or Zadvydas v. Davis have anything to do with military conduct in the field, nor do they suggest the military must act differently towards citizen enemy combatants vs foreign enemy combatants.

Zadvydas v. Davis actually gives certain rights to non-citizens.

Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963) is mooted by Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) in any case.

United States v. Robel deals with citizens in the United States and it does uphold the legality of the Smith Act in its reference to Scales v. United States. It was dismissed due to the… failure to allege that appellee was an active Party member with knowledge of and a specific intent to advance its unlawful purposes.

It seems to imply that if they had alleged and proven such membership and intent that he could have been denied employment due to membership in the Communist Party.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 2:51 AM

What nonsense… Being that young goes a long way in not deserving to be executed especially if he was taken in by that group at an even younger age. Get some perspective, man.

The rest of the world does not operate by the infantilized American standard of 30 year old ‘children’. The 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend was made up of 16 and 17 year olds. His age in no way proscribed his involvement in Al-Qaeda, as Issa Bdeir’s suicide attack in Israel testifies to, as well as the 8-17 year old suicide bombers in Afghanistan.

Doesn’t seem to be a problem for you in other areas…

Chubbs65 on February 8, 2013 at 2:41 AM

Like what?

You have already suggested an unconstitutional measure so do tell where I have suggested any such thing.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 3:04 AM

Axe on February 8, 2013 at 2:04 AM

Thanks. Did you study this in college?

Rusty Allen on February 8, 2013 at 3:05 AM

Neither Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez or Zadvydas v. Davis have anything to do with military conduct in the field, nor do they suggest the military must act differently towards citizen enemy combatants vs foreign enemy combatants.

Military conduct is not the issue. The issue is the deprivation of due process of Americans. You keep using the term “enemy combatant” when it does not apply.

An enemy combatant has been defined as “an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.”

Summary of Evidence for Combatant Status Review Tribunal

The problem with all of your arguments is that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was not an enemy combatant. Before you can get to military law and conduct, you must first prove that it is applicable and that requires evidence that the subject is an enemy combatant. Without such evidence, you fail.

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that al-Awlaki:

1. Was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; and

2. Committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.

That he was around his father does not make him an enemy combatant. His guilt must be proven separately.

The caselaw that I cited in my last post, as well as the rest, has nothing to do with the military. You have said, repeatedly, that there is no due process in a time of war. I’ve proven otherwise. Being at war doesn’t negate the rights of Americans nor does it allow the President carte blanche, as Justice O’Connor wrote in Hamdi.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki’s death doesn’t even meet with the requirements laid out in the memo.

BTW, if you want to get an idea as to the problems with depriving Americans of their due process rights and then executing them, you might wish to read some of the articles written by those on the left and the right that support the drone strikes. They are finally beginning to say what I have for 2 years:

Amend Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) so that it covers not only foreign states, but terrorist organisations that are engaged in hostilities with the US.

If citizenship didn’t matter, they would not be zeroing in on this statute.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 3:17 AM

BTW, support must be material.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 3:26 AM

That he was around his father does not make him an enemy combatant. His guilt must be proven separately.

His guilt doesn’t have to be proven at all.

Neither does mine, or yours.

If we pal around with Al-Qaeda members ‘cause its kewl‘ and get a Hellfire for our stupidity doesn’t mean that our rights have been violated. It means that there is such a thing as a Darwin award and we got selected.

There is no due process before capture, and you haven’t produced a shred of evidence to suggest there is.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 1:58 AM

The caselaw that I cited in my last post, as well as the rest, has nothing to do with the military. You have said, repeatedly, that there is no due process in a time of war.

I have said repeatedly that BEFORE BEING TAKEN INTO CUSTODY they have no expectation of due process.

BEFORE BEING TAKEN INTO CUSTODY
BEFORE BEING TAKEN INTO CUSTODY
BEFORE BEING TAKEN INTO CUSTODY
BEFORE BEING TAKEN INTO CUSTODY
BEFORE BEING TAKEN INTO CUSTODY

In case you missed it the first dozen times I said it.

Being at war doesn’t negate the rights of Americans nor does it allow the President carte blanche, as Justice O’Connor wrote in Hamdi.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 3:17 AM

No it doesn’t if they are not enemy combatants.

If they are, then their citizenship is irrelevant. Even when they are NOT enemy combatants, but simply civilians in an enemy city, POWs, or forcibly conscripted such as we saw in the War Of 1812, their constitutional rights do not apply in such a situation.

In fact there are times when you have no due process domestically with the police. They do not have to put you on trial before they use lethal force if the situation requires it.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 3:39 AM

Thanks. Did you study this in college?

Rusty Allen on February 8, 2013 at 3:05 AM

This isn’t what they taught me in college. :) I studied physics and biomedical engineering. And this girl Michelle.

But it’s been a study of a long time. I’d jump in here and here, and there’s a vast quantity to be gained here, but please consider buying it here if you ever buy it, and be advised that I get a cut on that last because I helped write the annotations.

This is really something to read once.

Out of all that, don’t skip Mark Van Doren! I think my love affair started with Van Doren. He loved what he was reading, so even when he was being critical of it, it wasn’t negative and tearing-down. And based on a snip in that book, I went here, and then we were off. :)

It was this:

MARINA
Is this wind westerly that blows?

LEONINE
South-west.

MARINA
When I was born, the wind was north.

LEONINE
Was’t so?

MARINA
My father, as nurse said, did never fear,
But cried ‘Good seaman!’ to the sailors, galling
His kingly hands, haling ropes;
And, clasping to the mast, endured a sea
That almost burst the deck.

LEONINE
When was this?

MARINA
When I was born.
Never was waves nor wind more violent;
And from the ladder-tackle washes off
A canvas-climber. ‘Ha!’ says one, ‘wilt out?’
And with a dropping industry they skip
From stem to stern: the boatswain whistles, and
The master calls, and trebles their confusion.

– Can you see it? :) It’s like some kind of dance. And Marina goes from telling a story in the past to being caught up in it, to present tense, before she’s through. Words, man! :) Look what they can do!

. . . sorry. I didn’t realize how much I love this crap. I’m sorry. I’ll type less. Someone tell bluegill I repent.

Axe on February 8, 2013 at 3:39 AM

Thanks. Did you study this in college?

Rusty Allen on February 8, 2013 at 3:05 AM

My answer got moderated ’cause of link count. :) If it doesn’t show up, I’ll make another run. If I get banned, my sock will make another run. :)

Axe on February 8, 2013 at 3:41 AM

*Not that I have a sock.

Axe on February 8, 2013 at 3:41 AM

*yawn*

*poof*

Axe on February 8, 2013 at 3:43 AM

The rest of the world does not operate by the infantilized American standard of 30 year old ‘children’. The 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend was made up of 16 and 17 year olds. His age in no way proscribed his involvement in Al-Qaeda, as Issa Bdeir’s suicide attack in Israel testifies to, as well as the 8-17 year old suicide bombers in Afghanistan.

I don’t care how the rest of the world ‘works.’ They are irrelevant to our rights.

Doesn’t seem to be a problem for you in other areas…

Chubbs65 on February 8, 2013 at 2:41 AM

Like what?

Being ok with bureaucrats and the CIC summarily executing an American child without process who was not on a battlefield, probably not responsible for his situation or able to extract himself from it, and was in an area where no military action was sanctioned by Congress… 2 big ones there.

Chubbs65 on February 8, 2013 at 3:49 AM

Am I the last one standing?

countrybumpkin on February 8, 2013 at 4:01 AM

probably not responsible for his situation or able to extract himself from it,

He seemed to be able to get himself there, so how is he so weak and helpless that he couldn’t get himself out? Well, except when he decided he wanted to leave and then he was no longer helpless.

and was in an area where no military action was sanctioned by Congress… 2 big ones there.

Chubbs65 on February 8, 2013 at 3:49 AM

The AUMF does sanction operations against Al-Qaeda.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 4:01 AM

Last two standing?

Rusty Allen on February 8, 2013 at 4:06 AM

Good morning, Detroit!

Rusty Allen on February 8, 2013 at 5:41 AM

Look, if the kid was not involved in Jihad, then he don’t get his 72 virgins.

I’m serious. I read it in the Koran or somewhere . . .

BigAlSouth on February 8, 2013 at 6:09 AM

Come on, he loses the virgins too? ;-)

tommy71 on February 8, 2013 at 6:30 AM

O/T: I am a direct person.- Susan Rice [Benghazigate]
My take.

kingsjester on February 8, 2013 at 6:46 AM

For centuries, civilized societies have understood that even wars must be fought according to rules, which have developed over time in response to changing realities. Rules are even more important in endless, murky wars such as the fight against Islamist terror groups.

Quite right, we did!

We still do: they are called the Piracy Codes and they are still in the US Code.

Remember that Pirates are the Private enemies of the Nation, who are individuals or groups that declare themselves to be the final arbiters of their fate and who make war under no banner, under no government authorization, wear no uniforms, have no system of accountability save the battlefield which is their chosen realm of operation. Pirates had two sets of laws applied to them – military and civil. Those caught under military code had but to be demonstrated to be actively attacking the US or its people (or any Nation) or having taken part in acts of war against the US or its people, or to be a part of a group declaring itself for doing same. You got a summary execution upon determination of this – and it was usually done in the field.

As the organizations and individuals went on a list that was publicly known there were also public laws on the civil side to cover Piracy. Those laws required civil capture when a known Pirate was not actively performing acts of war on the US or its people either on his own or in coordination with a known Piratical group. If you were accused, that is to say made the list, you had the option as in the case of Capt. Morgan (the guy on the bottles of rum) to either flee or come back home to demonstrate your innocence. He went back home, cleared his name under law and was removed from the list (along with crew and ship) as they couldn’t know a war had ended when they made their sets of attacks.

This gets you doctrine (we acknowledge that there are Private enemies of the US that we can legally go after), puts the process in the hands of Congress (under its rule making ability for the military, for civil law and via the Letters language), and then there is due process when such Pirates are captured which is rough and summary in the battlefield or against those who have been given time to give themselves up peacefully, and on the civil side for those caught by normal citizens or police at home or on ship (unless there are Letters of Reprisal involved, thus allowing private citizens to render damages against the Private enemy).

Yes there are literally CENTURIES of law and cases GLOBALLY that pre-date the era of ‘terrorism’ for those dealing in terrorist activities. We are too modern, too smart and just plain too stupid enough to use them. See where that gets you? The President and cronies playing card games with ‘kill lists’ and then unaccountable behavior with unknown lists shielded from Public scrutiny. Oh, joy! Oh, rapture!

How deep does this modern age sucketh? Let me count the ways of Progressivism regressing our understanding of the world…

ajacksonian on February 8, 2013 at 7:01 AM

Good morning HA
Another day for the lsm hypocrisy
Joe thinks the dems should apologize to W.it should start with dear leader himself…..
ain’t gonna happen

cmsinaz on February 8, 2013 at 7:37 AM

Great take. kJ absolutely despicable

Crickets from the lsm on this.. cnn onlyfocused on the cop killer in ca

cmsinaz on February 8, 2013 at 7:42 AM

KJ
Not a peep about panetta on politico

Shameful

cmsinaz on February 8, 2013 at 7:48 AM

cmsinaz on February 8, 2013 at 7:42 AM

Thank you, ma’am!

kingsjester on February 8, 2013 at 8:50 AM

If an American (and his son) in the middle of nowhere Yemen can be whacked without constitutional due process because they supposedly pose an imminent threat to the US, it makes sense to allow Obooba (or his designee) to whack Americans right here in the middle of the US surrounded by US citizens and government buildings and all, you know, once the decision has been made that they pose an imminent threat and all.

Which is exactly why we started shooting British soldiers way back when.

Akzed on February 8, 2013 at 9:33 AM

No it doesn’t if they are not enemy combatants.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 3:39 AM

The whole point is that any “offical” gets to decide what that means. In other words, it depends upon what the meaning of “enemy combatant” is, (think Bill Clinton) and “any offical” gets to use his own dictionary. After Benghazi, surely there will be no repercussions by oversight folks, will there?

Don L on February 8, 2013 at 10:31 AM

The whole point is that any “offical” gets to decide what that means. In other words, it depends upon what the meaning of “enemy combatant” is, (think Bill Clinton) and “any offical” gets to use his own dictionary. After Benghazi, surely there will be no repercussions by oversight folks, will there?

Don L on February 8, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Congressional oversight is supposed to exist. Someone has to make those decisions. Someone has to decide where the military will act and under what circumstances and who to use military force against.

A nation cannot be run the courts. The complete abdication of responsibility by the political class is a major part of the problem.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 10:36 AM

I have this question to ask but no appropriate thread to ask it on. So….

The question of assassinations

I have a question about this. My hope is perhaps you all will help flesh this out for me. Is a Marine sniper on the battlefield from, lets say, two clicks out committing and assassination when he pulls the trigger on a enemy?

Bmore on February 8, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Bmore on February 8, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Evidence belongs in a courtroom, not in a war torn region like Yemen. Again, you are thinking this is a law enforcement concern and it isn’t.

There is very little that is just in war. People die for all sorts of reasons and this kid was looking to join his Al-Qaeda father. He wasn’t an innocent party. He wasn’t there looking to get his father to sign his yearbook.

So tell me… what he was doing there?

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 1:14 AM

Hamdi V Rumsfeld, a 2004 SCOTUS Case.

We caught Hamdi GUN IN HAND FIGHTING AGAINST THE US FOR AL QAEDA. No question what he was doing there.

Bush said “I can detain him indefinitely without due process, evidence or oversight”.

SCOTUS said “No, you need a neutral party for evidence and oversight; not a full court trial; but something” and we got military style trials for Gitmo detainees. No public trial, no courtroom trial; but an evidentiary hearing with outside involvement and oversight on the process.

This kid wasn’t in the middle of a battle shooting at US troops. We assassinated him. And somehow you’re under the impression we can assassinate a US citizen outside of the field of battle without due process, evidence or oversight of any form…

Do you believe the Hamdi ruling was wrong? Or is assassination ok, but detaining someone is too horrible to allow?

We have a solution. Military style trials, held outside the view of the public to preserve the secrecy of sensitive materials; as we had for Hamdi ruling detainees.

This isn’t a decision made ON the field of battle, but beforehand. We have a setup for due process and evidence to preserve a minimal required respect for the rights of US Citizens, while not treating terrorists with kid gloves.

Why don’t we use the process the SCOTUS has already said we must use to clarify that a US Citizen in fact IS a terrorist?

Apparently I’m missing something; but I don’t understand what it could possibly be.

gekkobear on February 8, 2013 at 2:50 PM

I have this question to ask but no appropriate thread to ask it on. So….

The question of assassinations

I have a question about this. My hope is perhaps you all will help flesh this out for me. Is a Marine sniper on the battlefield from, lets say, two clicks out committing and assassination when he pulls the trigger on a enemy?

Bmore on February 8, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Bmore on February 8, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Just my opinion, so take it for what it’s worth.

If there is a battle in progress, a fight being engaged that his target is a part of… No, the sniper is also part of the battle (well removed, but still “battlefield” conditions/rules apply you shoot anyone in the fight opposed to your side). An air strike from outside the range of the people you’re fighting isn’t “assassination” either.

If however your sniper’s target is at the dining room table sitting down for a snack… yes, that is an assassination. It’s hard to have a “battlefield” without a battle.

That doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t assassinate people. But it isn’t a situation where “This guy is pointing a gun at someone on my side, if I don’t shoot him this second without approval”. It’s a “for the benefit of our side, we need to kill their leaders to demoralize their troops and confuse their command structure” or maybe even “one less room full of guys to fight us later”.

But if we’ve tracked down a guy to have him assassinated whenever we find him; we can also get minimal due process/evidence/oversight approval for killing him once we do find him.

That’s my opinion, not the rules of law; but I’ll stand by that opinion.

gekkobear on February 8, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Or does his very presence mean that no strike can take place because he’s an American citizen? That would allow any terror group to seed their formations with Americans as an invincible shield from American airstrikes.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 2:03 AM

Or his random place on the planet. For Example: Let’s say he is in a Mosque in Illinois or Kansas City. Under your logic that should not reduce the opportunity to strike him down. I mean, the left sees “National Borders” as so last Century and everyone here is either documented or about to be documented, so an evil terrorist and his son or daughter is a target and his location on this planet, his citizen status, etc is irrelevant to the bureaucrat in charge of destroying said Terrorist.

Unbelievable.

Bulletchaser on February 8, 2013 at 2:59 PM

And I am not at all convinced that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki wasn’t an enemy combatant. No one has given me any sane reason for this guy to be joining his terrorist father who was a self-declared traitor.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 2:12 AM

We’re in agreement… I’m not convinced if he was or wasn’t an enemy combatant.

We don’t know, if he was in combat when he was killed then we’d know; but as it is we don’t.

Any proof he was an enemy combatant?
We’re not allowed to see that, and it will never be released to anyone.

The person who thought he was thought so because?
We’re not allowed to see that, and it will never be released to anyone.

The people who can make such a determination are?
We’re not allowed to see that, and it will never be released to anyone.

I start to have a problem here. Someone somewhere can decide on their own that you’re an enemy combatant, and on that alone you can be killed without oversight or question wherever you may be found.

That seems a bit further than I’m willing to trust the government. Ever.

gekkobear on February 8, 2013 at 3:06 PM

If however your sniper’s target is at the dining room table sitting down for a snack… yes, that is an assassination. It’s hard to have a “battlefield” without a battle.

What!? So a “dawn raid” should wait till after breakfast to be legitimate? A midnight attack is illegitimate because the enemy is in his PJ’s?

Once war is declared, combatant in the battle-space is a legitimate target. Most women and children are not legitimate targets, men who are on a base, sometimes in uniform, have weapons are Most certainly a target, in PJ’s, in the mess hall, playing cards on a warship, or asleep in their bomber.

The snipers bullet is a weapon of war, just like a bomb or a missile, precision guided by the hand of the soldier instead of electronics but none the less for such. Assassination is only a civilian word, used for illegitimate killing of another, not war. Kennedy was assassinated, soldiers in the field, no matter if In flagrante delicti in the brothel or with bullets blazing are not.

Bulletchaser on February 8, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Bulletchaser on February 8, 2013 at 3:17 PM

I didn’t say assassination was a bad thing we should never do.

Once war is declared, combatant in the battle-space is a legitimate target.

Ok, so “battle-space” in the GWoT is … global. Anywhere on the planet, right?

Combatant is … whoever any “high level government official” says it is according to this memo.

By your rules you’ve just declared any “high level government official” can kill anyone, anywhere, at any time.

Are you really sure that asking for a bit of evidence or oversight is too much to ask when you demand the right to kill any person on the planet on a whim?

I think I’m going to have to ask that perhaps we have just a tiny bit of oversight or limitation on that one. I don’t trust the government that much. I’m surprised you do…

gekkobear on February 8, 2013 at 3:27 PM

If they are, then their citizenship is irrelevant. Even when they are NOT enemy combatants, but simply civilians in an enemy city, POWs, or forcibly conscripted such as we saw in the War Of 1812, their constitutional rights do not apply in such a situation.

In fact there are times when you have no due process domestically with the police. They do not have to put you on trial before they use lethal force if the situation requires it.

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 3:39 AM

Yes, being an American is most assuredly important. Presidents MAY NOT order the assassinations of American citizens.

Yes, being an enemy combatant before you TARGET someone is important.

Yes, AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY WRITTEN IN THIS THREAD, Americans in Dresden, Tokyo, or whatever were fair game. They – INDIVIDUALLY – were NOT TARGETED. They were ANONYMOUS AND COLLATERAL DAMAGE.

Yes, the police can use deadly force, but only in limited circumstances as I HAVE WRITTEN SEVERAL TIMES ON THIS THREAD.

ONCE AGAIN, since you have an obvious reading comprehension problem:

On the use of deadly force and law enforcement, in Tennessee v Garner, 471 US 1 (1985), the Supreme Court held that law enforcement is only permitted the use of such force against dangerous suspects, who are in flight, when killing the suspect is “necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

Probable cause IS required, the suspect MUST be in flight, and he must be an IMMINENT DANGER.

In Fourth Amendment cases, the Supreme Court has stressed that “the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.”

Deadly force was held not justified where a suspect’s vehicle was “moving slowly and in a non-aggressive manner, could not have hit any of the officers, and was stationary at the time of the shooting.” Kirby v Duva, 530 F.3d 475, 482 (6th Cir. 2008). Also, in Smith v Cupp, 430 F.3d 766, 774-75 (6th Cir. 2005), the Court held that suspect who had taken control of officer’s patrol car, although he was in possession of a dangerous weapon, “was not threatening the lives of those around him.”

“Shoot to kill” orders are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 3:39 PM

And, btw, Sharrukin, I am not wearing a bleeding heart on my sleeve about any of the Americans that have been droned although I do not believe that the droning of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, especially, was constitutionally within the President’s war powers.

I am THRILLED that Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan are DEAD. I am not fighting for them. I am fighting for you, every other American and the rule of law.

If we permit this – the most grave of all powers a leader can have, then we will suffer in the future.

Constitutional rights are not to be fought for and upheld only when it is expedient.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Is a Marine sniper on the battlefield from, lets say, two clicks out committing and assassination when he pulls the trigger on a enemy?

Bmore on February 8, 2013 at 11:38 AM

NO. Without a doubt, citizenship neither requires the military to question the citizenship status of combatants on a battlefield in the midst of a firefight nor does it require the Federal government to pull its punches because an American might become endangered if its acts against its declared enemy. Thus, the military did not need to first determine if there were Americans on a battlefield or hostile place (John Walker Lindh) nor did it have to forgo the bombing of Tokyo in WWII because Tokyo Rose might be living amongst the inhabitants nor did the Federal government have to grant Americans, who left to join the GERMAN army in WWII and were caught spying, a civilian trial rather than a courts martial.

The execution programme is quite different. It is the specific targeting of Americans that is problematic because they are entitled to a modicum of due process. Furthermore, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), the Court ruled that the President may hold enemy combatants, including Americans, but also held that detainees who are US citizens HAVE RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS and MUST be able to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial court. In the 3 cases where Americans have been executed by drone, none was even indicted.

If a President cannot strip Americans, who are enemy combatants fighting for non-government enemies of their due process rights in connection with detention, he cannot do the same by ordering their assassination.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 3:46 PM

I have said repeatedly that BEFORE BEING TAKEN INTO CUSTODY they have no expectation of due process.

BEFORE BEING TAKEN INTO CUSTODY
BEFORE BEING TAKEN INTO CUSTODY
BEFORE BEING TAKEN INTO CUSTODY
BEFORE BEING TAKEN INTO CUSTODY
BEFORE BEING TAKEN INTO CUSTODY

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 3:39 AM

Er, I didn’t write this:

“There is no due process in war.”

sharrukin on February 8, 2013 at 12:36 AM

You did.

You said that there was due process in war. I’ve proven – with Supreme Court precedent – otherwise.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM

You said that there was NO due process in war. I’ve proven – with Supreme Court precedent – otherwise.

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Resist We Much on February 8, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4