No, what we are back to is that “rights” have anything to do with the battlefield, something totally ludicrous and ignorant of history and the law.
I don’t think you truly understand what you are actually saying. Enemies on the battlefield can be killed, because they are waging war against us. Do you not at all recognize that is a different situation from someone who is a regular criminal here in the United States? We can’t arrest military enemies, they don’t submit to our police power.
Dude, I’ve explained this over and over and over and over and over. You change your definition of “military”, “military action” whenever it suits your purpose. Killing a citizen on the battlefield - military. Capturing a guy on the battlefield - not military. The military detaining a citizen and then killing him after military tribunal - not military. The military marching into a house in Miami and killing someone with no trial - military. It’s hard to take you seriously when you play those kinds of games.
You are. You argue the entire world is a battlefield, as long as the President says it is. According to you, if the President decides Guantanamo is a battlefield, he can kill anyone there without due process.
I understand battlefield. I don’t think the entire world constitutes a 'battlefield". I’ve explained this over and over and over, and you remain oblivious to it all. No wonder you’re shocked.
Since you cited Hamdi and Hamdan, and they were both enemy combatants, let’s see what they were doing and whether you even agree they should be enemy combatants. Here’s a very brief summary:
Hamdi - Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan by the Afghan Northern Alliance in 2001 and then turned over to U.S. military authorities during the U.S. invasion. The U.S. government alleged that Hamdi was there fighting for the Taliban, while Hamdi, through his father, has claimed that he was merely there as a relief worker and was mistakenly captured.
Hamdan - Hamdan, Yemini national, was captured by militia forces in Afghanistan driving. He had a rocket launcher in trunk.
I say, based on their status as enemy combatants, unfortunately could have legally been killed; instead they were captured. Do you agree?
In fact, criminals are due more protection. Had we captured bin Laden instead of killing him while he was resisting arrest, I would certainly support a trial in an open and civilian court, exactly as I support (and have supported) a trial in an open and cvililian court for all the al Qaeda Guantanomo detainees. He was not a representative of a nation that we are in a legal war with. He was a criminal.
“A criminal orginization” is a loaded term, but “enemy” or “battlefield” isn’t? Go figure.
shrug Up to them, and I don’t see why their views should affect mine. I’ve been known to disagree with at least one.
Hamdan, IIRC, wasn’t a US citizen and wasn’t on US soil until Guantanamo, so I don’t think he would have been entitled to Constitutional protections in Afghanistan. Hamdi, as a US citizen, could have been killed on the battlefield, but once off it (thanks to his detention) he was entitled to due process.
Hamdan was a Yemini national. If he was not an enemy combatant, he could have been entitled to some constitutional protections depending on the circumstances. That’s not relevant if we both agree he was an enemy combatant, though.
So good, we’ve both come to an agreement (and this thread is moving fast and I’m watching TV, so this might only be news to me). US citizens can be killed as a measure of first resort. We agree on that. But, that can only occur on the battlefield. (The correct context is is they are killed in an “armed conflict” but battlefield is fine).
Question. Can US citizens in Langley be legally killed by opposing forces? Do you consider CIA HQ’s a part of the battlefield even though the war is in, Afghanistan? Say, could AQ legally kill a 25 year old female targeter staring at her monitor drinking a white chocolate mocha, no whip. Is that context a battlefield?
I’m not sure there’s a way around the fundamental “would you rather” at work here:
(1) Fight terrorism as a criminal matter, and try to bring people like Al-Awlaki to justice through ordinary means. In practice, this probably means letting most of the Al-Awlakis of the world go free.
OR
(2) Permit the expansion of what counts as war (i.e., lawful due process-free killing) to this narrow case: a man who the executive believes is a national security threat who refuses to surrender and cannot be safely captured.
The middle ground – trials* in absentia* or arbitrary definitions of the battlefield – is ultimately untenable or unstable, respectively. So you gotta choose.
I’m not sure the choice is obvious. It would be a lot better if we could have an honest national dialogue about it. But, of course, that’s not possible.
These days, yes. Asymmetrical warfare makes the previous rules kinda iffy.
For the record, I don’t give a shit whether or not this strike was “legal.” That’s splitting hairs that don’t matter to me. The fucker was an enemy of the US who had taken blatant actions against the US, had openly aided those seeking our ruin, and he deserved every little bit of high explosive that blew his ass away. I could give a shit if he was a US citizen. When he aided and abetted the enemy, he lost every protection that gave him. This is war, and the world is the battlefield.
Er, the people executed in World War II were “criminals” or at least declared “criminals” by the US government and executed without the benefit of a civilian trial.
Why shouldn’t they have been given civilian trials.
Please explain your reasoning.
Similarly people alleged by the US government to be members of the NLF, who were alleged to have committed war crimes were executed without civilian trials.
I assume at least in that case you think the US government was wrong and they should have been given civilian trials.
Ummm, we could have come to that agreement on page one, because it’s never really been in contention. The issue with Al Awlaki is how far does the “battlefield” concept extend. That’s not an easy question, and it appears you wish to get into all kinds of examples of what is, or isn’t, a battlefield. I’m not really interested in spending countless pages dealing with “what about …” followed up by “yeah, well, what about …” and on and on. I am simply not convinced that the entire world is a battlefield (love, however, clearly is) and the President, and the President alone, gets to determine it.
They were nationals of an enemy nation, sent to perform actions to the benefit of that enemy nation during a war,.
Don’t you understand why I keep using the words “nation” and “war” here?
What’s the NLF?
I disagree. For the rare cases (and it’s pretty clear it is rare), where a US citizen is selected for extrajudicial targeted killing, I think military tribunals with appellate review could be a workable solution. Ideally, it would happen in a Constitutional way, where all branches of government get involved in deciding what is a battlefield, what process is due, and the rest of the issues. It could be done if we had leaders instead of politicians.
Sad, isn’t it. I think that extrajudicial killings of US citizens without due process is a bad thing, and I’ve been called a “little bitch” and stupid. Welcome to the current level of debate in American politics.
Why duck the Langley question, though. It seems so relevant to defining a 2011 battlefield. But yea, I do wish to get into all kinds of what is, or isn’t, a battlefield (I apologize for wasting time though about things I could have read earlier in the thread).
Anyways, let’s deal with only this particular case and these particular facts…Yemen declared war on AQAP in January in 2010. We are there at their request and, arguably, helping them fight that war. (Even though we could, and likely are, there at their request to fight our own US v. AQAP war). Is Awlaki apart of AQAP? Is Yemen in fact fighting a war? Is a country where people are killing each other with military weapons a battlefield? Is it somehow not a battlefield when 3rd party countries help out the host country at their request?
Yemen hasn’t declared war on Yemen, they’ve declared war on Al Qaeda. The US did the same thing. Declaring war on Al Qaeda doesn’t make the US a battlefield. We’ve had Al Qaeda here in our country, as has Yemen. We’ve had people killing people with military weapons here too. Do you think the US is the battlefield? Can the President order the killing of a US citizen in the US based only on his say so that that person is our enemy?
I think the issues of location of the citizen, the voluntariness of their residence, the state of the government in that area, the assistance/denial of assistance of the ruling government, and/or the “battlefieldness” of the location can all be issues to determine what process is due. For example, Al Awlaki, by hiding in the citizenry of Yemen and willfully avoiding any attempts of capture, is entitled to less due process than say a US citizen in the US who is seized and sent to Syria to be tortured. I just don’t think saying “military” or “enemy” suddenly means the Constitution stops applying to US citizens.
When it comes to the executive branch killing you, why are US citizens entitled to greater due process than non-citizens? I don’t think they are. And if they’re not, then any due process solution rapidly approaches impracticality.
Even a tiny amount of process – trial in absentia in front of a military judge – which amounts in practice to little more process than the decision of the President, is still probably unworkable if it applies to every killing abroad.
The effort to limit to a battlefield is similarly doomed in practice. Thee possibilities: (1) Congress declares every place that we cannot safely capture someone the battlefield – adding nothing more than what the AUMF does now; (2) Congress declares a bright line battlefield, like specific nations, returning to the 20th century model that was one of the choices I offered; or (3) Congress tries to define some dynamic battlefield, and the question just becomes who decides that the guy was in the battlefield – does he get process on that question?
How about Obama ordering the assassination of propagandists who call for the bombing of the New York Times and executing liberals to frighten them into silence? Isn’t that pretty much what this guy did, but without mentioning specific targets and classes of American victim?
Obama has now moved further to the right than W ever did. W only threatened to do it. Obama did it. And I’m seriously thinking of voting for the man. W made me hate his policies and Dick Cheney. Obama makes me hate myself and mourn for my country.
I’m quoting you in bulk, but then going to answer your questions individually.
It makes that girl targeter in Langley a legitimate target. It doesn’t make hypothetical you two miles away a legitimate target.
Yes. See above. If the CIA spreads out (as any logical enemy would do that is being attacked), then so does the battlefield. You however, are still not a legitimate target.
No. And the President is not claiming he can. Awlaki is in a far away place; Yemen is unable to get him, however, Awlaki is able to conduct attacks against America from his location. That would not happen in America. We’d just go get him. If he was in Canada, they’d just go get him. If he resisted, he might be shot in personal self-defense like any other criminal would.
He got much more due process than most enemies get, but less than he would being brought through the court system. Whatever “that” due process is, it needs to be structured in a way with more oversight than just the Executive. The Judiciary has already said no thanks. Congress is sitting there. The Executive acted instead of risking another terrorist attack by this guy. I don’t want it to continue in this way, though. Too much reliance on the Executive to provide his own version of due process.
I do not believe that the AUMF would authorize such a thing. It specifically says that the President may use force to stop international terrorism. I would generally say that US citizens in the United States plotting an attack on the United States would be domestic terrorists.
Since I answered your question, please answer mine: do you believe that there are any circumstances under which Congress may authorize war that would make Americans legitimate military targets?
Because the Constitution doesn’t apply in full effect to the entire world. It grants protections to US citizens and those in the territorial US, not to every citizen in the world. And while it might be ideal to treat everyone in the world like we do those in the territorial US, I don’t think the Constitution requires that.
Why? The Constitution has had that interpretation for centuries and we still have a functioning criminal justice system as well as a system for protecting US citizens abroad.
Not every killing. Every targeted killing of US citizens abroad. Other than Al Awlaki, can you think of any other example in the last 200 years? I can’t. We’re talking about something that is, and should be, incredibly rare.
Because something is difficult doesn’t mean is it “doomed”. We have the prototypes for these kinds of things. We had FISA courts and court martials, and Ex Parte Quirin. It can be done. It just takes political willpower, which is in short supply.
If it’s not a problem, I’ll reply to what I think is important.
I don’t see the Constitution suddenly not applying if the citizen is difficult to capture. As I said, I think Al Awlaki’s decisions to hide among the populace of Yemen and specifically avoid capture or challenging of his state to be important to determine the definition of what kind of process is due, but I also don’t think “Cause I said so” by the President to meet that standard.
We agree on that. I just don’t think the spinelessness of the other branches means the Executive gets to engage in extrajudicial killings of US citizens.