If only it were that simple. In the real world people sometimes need to be stopped and the best way to do that is to kill them. If you’re shooting up a mall or holding hostages someone might just have to put a bullet in you without the convenience of a trail. Likewise if you are actively plotting the demise of innocent people and are in a part of the world where you cannot be captured you just might have to be killed.
I do agree that the collateral casualties of these drone strikes are shocking and need to be more closely reviewed. I’m not naive enough to think it will never happen but I would be far more comfortable if I knew some honest analysis was directed at minimizing it. Unfortunately that information will never be published in the Times so the only way I’ll get that comfort is to become a Whitehouse insider; That should happen any day now…
Ehh, governments do this sort of thing all day long, anyway. Obama wasn’t the first, and he won’t be the last; power always ignores law when it suits their purposes. I have no expectation that there’s any remedy for this whatsoever, even in the metaphysical sense. The business of the state is vaporizing people to round out the margins.
Of course, I live in the PRC, so maybe that colors my view of the world…
zoid-I absolutely agree killing someone in the moment is the prudent way of doing things! But if he’s taken into custody, he’s (assuming he’s American) entitled to due process.
If it comes down to it, you do nothing. If the only way you can achieve your goals is to shit on the principles you swore to protect, then you don’t achieve your goals. That’s supposed to be what separates us from the terrorists.
Besides the order coming from the executive rather than the legislature, it sounds like a Bill of Attainder to me. In an era where the President seems to be allowed to legislate via his executive orders, it seems that this prohibition should be extended to him as well.
Some other, more general questions I have:
Where were these people? Exactly whose air space are we invading to kill these people?
Did anyone even try to extradite these people for trial? We don’t have to have an extradition treaty with a foreign government to ask.
The Authorization to Use Military Force simply isn’t a bill of attainder. It’s an authorization to use military force. Hellfire missiles are fundamentally a tool of warfare, not law enforcement.
The very definition of “War on Terror” is that terrorism is considered a military, rather than law enforcement, problem.
If we accept the premise that terrorism is a problem for the military, then military standards apply. If not, then we need to immediately halt the use of military assets and start treating them like regular crime suspects.
Many of the questions surrounding airstrikes, repatriation of detainees, etc. come about because people continue to insist on applying domestic law enforcement standards to military operations.
OK, but why should we ? It’s never been the case. The UK didn’t bomb Lybia over Lockerbie. Israel didn’t invade Germany (or even Palestine) over the Munich massacre. I’m sure I’ll be rebutted with “9/11 changed everything”, but why ? What did it change, exactly ? What’s special about it ?
A bill of attainder is an act of law. These are acts in a war, which is run by the Executive, in his role as C-in-C.
No court has ever held that a decision to use military forces to kill a specified individual is a Bill of Attainder, and no court ever will – unless, I suppose, the President appoints you to the federal bench someday.
The US bombed Libya in 1986 over a Libyan-sponsored attack on a nightclub in Berlin, Bill Clinton fired Tomahawk missiles after Bin Laden, and, to go a ways back in US history, Thomas Jefferson sent the US Navy to combat pirates in the early 19th century. There’s no need to even mention Israel’s military operations against terrorist organizations. What makes you think that armies only fought armies prior to 9/11?
I never thought so. I do think they were confined to small scales, “pinpoint” retaliation though. Boots on the ground is an entirely different thing. And of course, *deliberate *drone strikes on known citizens is also an entirely different thing.
Admittedly the Barbary wars might be a counterpoint, but then the Barbary corsairs were (and had been) a much more sizeable thorn in everyone’s keister than Al Qaeda. I’m reasonably sure they were accounted for in actuarial tables and everything :p.
I apologize in advance, because this is really, really aggravating and I have to bite my tongue to avoid dragging this into the Pit.
We suffered repeated attacks from Al-Qae’da, including one earlier attempt to destroy the WTC. 9/11 was different because of the sheer scale of the attacks and the loss of the life involved.
9/11 was also different because it proved that previous attempts to combat terrorism DID NOT WORK. This is the part that really aggravates me, because people apparently spent the last few decades living under a rock. Not one person who was actually awake on September 11 would actually say that it was in any way comparable to “normal” terrorist bombings up to that point in history.
So all the pacifists out there who whine and complain about how war doesn’t solve the problem. We spent DECADES ignoring Al-Qae’da, hoping they would go away, hoping that peace and diplomacy would solve our problems, and it DID NOT WORK.
Now, I have some pretty extensive criticisms about our flawed execution of the WOT and the War in Afghanistan. But that’s another subject. My point is that we DID give peace a chance, and treated terrorists like regular criminals, and it was a massive failure.
How many times has a US President specifically ordered the killing of a US citizen by the military without a finding of guilt? Have there been many cases where this argument was raised, or are we looking at a case of first impression?
If it had turned out that Osama bin Laden’s mother was an American citizen and thus he was entitled to birthright citizenship, would that have been an argument against tracking him down?
Nonsense. The people behind that earlier attack are in jail. Different people were behind 9-11.
You can’t stop terrorism because it’s a tactic. Trying to destroy terrorism is like trying destroy flank attacks or sniping or infrastructure attacks; you can’t blow up a tactic. Kill every terrorist on Earth, and there’d be new ones almost immediately.
Except that isn’t what we did. Well, except when Bush II took over; he did order bin Laden and Al Qaeda to be left alone.
Nonsense. When we did that, we ended with the terrorists in jail. Instead of us just sending drones to kill people near-randomly and create endless new future terrorists.
Check out these guys. They were British POWs who joined the Waffen SS. Let us alter history a bit and suppose that Churchill learns that they are plotting attacks against their home country, and Churchill believes it is important to neutralize that threat immediately. He proposes to send a team of SAS commandos to attack these British members of the SS.
Do you believe, given the UK’s general commitment to democracy and human rights, that Churchill would be under the moral obligation to take his military plans to a judge before he could order the SAS to undertake that covert mission?
Should Obama or whoever come after him have the right to kill you without a trial? Because that’s what we are really talking about; whether or not the President has the right to kill American citizens as he pleases, for whatever reason he feels like at the moment.
I will go even further: It would be wrong to put me on trial for anything, too, because I have never associated with any group that seeks to kill you or other Americans. If I were to associate myself with Al Qaida, I would surely do so with the knowledge that the US armed forces have been legally authorized to carry out military operations against me and my ilk for more than 11 years now. And the law doesn’t authorize the President to kill whomever he pleases, you are just inventing that “fact.”
Since I answered your question, please answer my Churchill hypothetical.