I can’t interpret this as anything other than a complete reversal in Obama’s campaign attitude. I’m miffed.
Is there no assassination equivalent of a FISA court?
Oh, well THAT’s a relief. For a second there, I thought the president was acting beyond what he was authorized to do. Of course, how would we know whether the president was acting within his authority when his decisions are challenged? Might we rely on the courts to make that determination?
Can you point to the section in the AUMF that authorizes the president to assassinate whoever he wants, without any sort of judicial review to confirm that he’s acting within the parameters of the AUMF?
Can someone provide an hypothetical situation where the actual assassination needed to be kept secret?
I can’t think of a situation where you’d want to assassinate a US citizen and not be willing to say what for.
I can’t tell you because it’s a secret. Also, it’s complicated.
Would a reasonable compromise be to require a detailed justification to be developed, vetted by oversight, then escrowed for a period of time (20 years?) after which it would be released to the public?
If we can’t allow the courts to judge, can we at least allow history to judge?
Due process is really all that matters. If the government thinks a U.S. citizen is engaged in acts that fall under the aegis of the AUMF, and their actions are challenged in court, let them justify it to a judge. It doesn’t have to be a matter of public record. Condemnation in hindsight is not an acceptable alternative (especially well after the fact).
The idea that the president can claim authority to assassinate a citizen under an act of Congress, yet denies the authority of the courts to review that claimed authority, is abhorrent and antithetical to our system of checks and balances.
I’m sure activist judges are composing it now.
The program This American Life recently did a story on the lawsuit that originated the concept of state secret privilege.
An airline crash occured killing several pilots and the gov. claimed releasing info would cause state secrets to be released. Eventually the daughter obtained the documents her mother couldn’t get, and there were no state secrets in it, just info about negligence on the part of the military.
So the entire concept could be based on a CYA maneuver designed to protect the military from being held accountable for negligence. No idea how that effects the nature of the law, but it does tell you a bit about why/how someone might invoke that statute.
“Lieutenant, take your platoon up the north side of Hill 657. You’ll have defilade from artillery fire there, and you can advance by leapfrogging squads. I need those machine gunners taken out before we bring the mortar teams up. You got that?”
“Sir, what if one of the enemy soldiers on the machine gun nests up there is an American citizen?”
“Lieutenant, I just gave you an order. Take that fucking hill!”
“Sir, I respectfully decline. Until you can show me a court order, you can’t order me to do anything that might kill a citizen, even if that citizen is fighting on the other side. The courts have the right to decide these things, sir, not you.”
“Fucking barracks lawyer! All right, hold your position for now. I’ll get Washington on the line. Hopefully they have a judge on duty to sign another of these fucking things.”
For a radical leftist community organiser this guy’s turning out to be more of a right-winger than I expected.
So the entire world’s a battlefield?
Most progressives have been vocal in their opposition to Obama in this issue. But, since the right-wing needs to preserve its “Obama is a radical socialist” idea, they ignore any left-wing opposition to him.
Exactly. Some people are trustworthy and some people aren’t.
You don’t like to hear it but the reason people didn’t trust Bush was because he demonstrated he wasn’t trustworthy. He showed that he was either a liar or an idiot who was being manipulated by liars.
We trusted Carter and Reagan and Obama. We didn’t trust Johnson and Nixon and Bush.
As you point out, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being.
So what law is in effect here? What is the law that authorizes President Obama to issue a “capture or kill” list.
Obviously, he can authorize military operations as mandated by Congress. But Anwar al-Aulaqi is in Yemen, a country we are not at war with.
So explain to me what lawful authority exists here.
The satire would be devastating, if an execution order against a specific target was equivalent to unintentional collateral damage on the battlefield. Or even like, similar.
The same one that overthrew a soverign nation that was never a threat to us and never attacked us, and killed it’s leader.
I didn’t trust Reagan.
No. But Yemen’s branch of al-Queda, headed by Anwar al-Aulaqi, is in a battlefield posiiton.
Public Law 107-40:
(emphasis mine)
A more accurate satire would read something like this:
“Lieutenant, I just gave you an order. Take that fucking hill!”
“But sir, that hill is in Stankonia. Congress only declared war against Elbonia.”
“Unnamed sources told me that the enemy is on that hill, lieutenant. Move your ass!”
“But…but sir, we’re not at war with Stankonia.”
“How DARE you question my authority! We don’t have time to scrutinize some piddling authorization. This is war, son!”