I wasn’t trying to say the circumstances were the exactly the same, but that the underlying principle of the government pre-empting the actions of killers was the same. Apparently I’m not getting much disagreement with that, and maybe I should just be pitting the talking heads on the news who act as if that principle doesn’t exist.
I think you’re right that the principle of government preemption is the same in some cases (when there’s a “concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life or physical safety” as Hamlet pointed out). What others are pointing out, I think, regards a newly leaked memo that showcases the government’s unfortunately generalized language as regards terrorist preemptions.
When “imminent threat” means “not necessarily imminent threat” and “recent” “terrorist” “activities” could mean “six months ago” “a young Pakistani man” “associated with a suspected terrorist”, it begins to seem like the underlying principles are, in fact, not alike.
Who are these talking heads? Most people I’ve heard or read all agree that you (or the government) can act in self-defense (or defense of nations), they just don’t think that can be stretched beyond all recognition to include “all US citizens who are members of Al Qaeda and/or related groups regardless of the threat they pose.”
The significant difference is one occurred during an Armed Conflict and one did not. That’s pretty much the beginning and end of the analysis.
As noted above in the leaked memo, an imminent threat outside an armed conflict actually means what those words sound like. However, how this administration is defining “imminent threat” to someone involved in an Armed Conflict just means the person has renewed their Al Qaeda membership. They are now an imminent threat to the US because Al Qaeda is at war with the US and wants to kill us.
The real question is not whether the person is an imminent threat, but whether the person is involved in an Armed Conflict against the US. Once you put someone in a “war” against the US, it’s pretty easy analysis to kill that person (much easier than outside an Armed Conflict).
This is almost exactly the rationale the US used to invade Iraq. A potential enemy has the potential to do you harm (Iraq didn’t really, but they claimed it did), and the desire to do so, so it’s okay to strike first, before the potential enemy gets around to deciding to attack you.
Once you’ve decided preemption based on potential threat is a sufficient reason to use force, it’s a very small step (and a step downward, for that matter) to use the same rationale against individuals as against states.
It may even be more rational – I don’t really know. Suppose we just waited, developed the armed stealth drone capability, and hit Saddam personally when we got some solid intelligence on where he was.
As to American citizenship, I think that’s more or less a red herring so long as these strikes stay outside the border of the US. Maybe it shouldn’t be, but hardly anybody cares that we kill people far away, Americans or not, who we are told are a threat.
Once there’s a drone strike in suburban Chicago, the shit will hit the fan.
The bunker guy shot first. He was in the middle of an actual attack.
This is pretty much how I feel about this. I’m not worried about getting whacked by a drone strike because I’m not collaborate with our enemies in the midst of an armed conflict.
I shouldn’t have started with a weak parallel between these cases, I was just in a pissy mood. But I don’t understand what kind of reasoning leads to a problem with killing our enemies on the battlefield no matter what their citizenship. What are we supposed to do in a war? Try to capture every enemy combatant and bring them to trial to determine that they aren’t US citizens before we kill them?
In determining whether or not the strikes are Constitutional, citizenship matters a ton. In determining whether or not the strikes are moral, violative of international laws, or a good idea, it’s not. But I’m mostly concerned with the legality of the action in my posts.
The battlefield here is defined as anywhere in the middle east, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or north Africa. So, don’t visit those areas, because if the executive branch wants to take you out, there is no oversight by anyone outside of that branch, and probably just a small circle within that branch. “Hey, Holder, what do you think about TriPolar?” “Meh, I’m not impressed.” “OK, send the drone!”
Anyway, I’m still disgusted with the Obama administration’s grab at power here. They weren’t even allowing oversight by the other branches. I’m also frustrated with the cowards in the Senate – if they are not getting what they want from the administration, they should overturn or modify the 2001 war resolution. Yesterday, however, the Obama administration made a tiny step in the right direction by allowing a few members of congress to at least review their reasoning.
In my mind, this is as bad as the Bush administration’s lame attempt at justifying torture. On top of it all, neither party can claim the high ground any longer. Just awful.
It’s been easy to criticize both administrations, but congress makes the laws. Those weasels could have done something to make this a clear matter of law a long time ago if they wanted to. Don’t blame the player, blame the game.
But Obama, and Bush before him, fight tooth and nail to avoid any oversight. They send pre-approved crap to the Intelligence committees, and that’s it. They don’t want a system for the fair trial of the detainees taken in the “war on terror” held in Guantanamo and they don’t want Congress telling them how to run their assassination program.
Let’s not get too cute here. Obama is ordering these drone strikes. Obama is killing US citizens with very little oversight. Obama is responsible for building up the drone program, for denying any judicial oversight of his actions, and for dragging his feet dealing with detainees. Blaming Congress, not Obama, for not stopping him is like blaming the police, not the criminal, for not stopping a crime.
They have the responsibility for carrying out the war that the bastards in congress declared (I’m looking at you Hillary and Kerry). It’s the congress that has really failed us (as usual). I’m not talking about detainees or torture, that applies to people we’ve captured alive. We’re talking about enemy soldiers on the battlefield. Suppose our enemies find some American quisling to join them in an attack. Should we tell our soldiers not to fire because they might hit the American and violate his rights?
As far as the lack of oversight, congress would have both the legal and moral authority to do that if they’d right some fucking laws. But of course they have no idea how to do that, they’re only skills are taking bribes, and I don’t of any lobbyists who want to write those laws for them. And since those bastards can’t keep matters of national security a secret because it’s easier to use them for their own selfish political purposes no president is going to bring them into the loop voluntarily.
I make a lousy advocate though, I’m too reasonable after I get done venting. I agree with you to the extent that nothing has prevented the executive branch from proposing reasonable means of oversight and regulation, and adhering to those even if the parasites on the hill don’t do their job.
You know, I’m a good liberal. I voted for Obama twice, I think he’s been pretty good for the country, and I think he cares a lot more about his actions than the prior President.
But this level of denial about Obama’s role in the drone program is simply mind boggling to me. I hate it when the right portray the left as believing Obama is some kind of messiah or can do no wrong, but then I see people bending over backwards to try and excuse his power grab and drone program and instead blaming Congress, I just kinda shake my head. It makes absolutely no sense to me to try and pretend that Congress is running the program or that Obama is blameless in a program that he ramped up and started killing US citizens with. It ruins the credibility of the left to continue to blame Congress instead of Obama for actions that Obama took.
I’m not denying Obama’s role even though we may disagree about the actions. The problem is that congress isn’t setting the law. They are just as much at fault for Bush’s actions as Obama’s. Congress isn’t running the program, and they shouldn’t, that’s the president’s job. But they’ve failed to establish the rules. Congress is complicit. And I still don’t see what blame should be placed on either Bush or Obama for killing US citizens who are trying to kill other US citizens overseas when there is no way to deal with them in the justice system because they are overseas hiding out with our enemies. Nobody is addressing the problem here, there are US citizens in league with terrorists, what are we supposed to do about that?
Obama isn’t some 5 year old kid with no impulse control whose parents refuse to discipline him. He’s a grown ass man running the most powerful nation in the world, and he’s responsible for his own actions. There is a grain of truth (Congress should be limiting the President’s power grabs), but that grain is outweighed by the mountain of iron that is Obama’s responsibility for his own actions.
Give them due process, if possible, before killing them. As John Mace pointed out earlier: “I don’t think most of us have a problem with targeting killings of someone like the guy in Yemen as long as there is some due process involved.”
Congress passed the AUMF back in 2001, which explicitly grants the president the authority to do what Obama is doing. If they had a problem with Obama’s actions, they could revise or revoke the AUMF. They haven’t.
Far from defending Obama, I’m just pointing out that Congress shares 100% of the blame. It doesn’t make Obama any less responsible or terrible for taking advantage of Congress’s incompetence. And frankly, it’s the American voting public’s fault for not forcing the issue. It never should have gotten to this point.
No. Congress doesn’t have the authority to violate the constitution, and a president doesn’t have to use all the authority that Congress gives him.
I agree with you. Nevertheless, that is exactly what happened.
It’s difficult for congress to set laws when they’re blocked from almost all information regarding the drone strike program. Not to mention that Congress has limited power over the CIA anyway. Today’s confirmation hearing for Brennan should be VERY interesting in both regards.
The AUMF is a nightmare that’s completely overreached its original intentions. I’ll just add that drone strikes didn’t begin until 2004, and American assassinations until well after, so who knows if they were even on the radar during congress’ initial decision.